^,6/0  2^ 


Stotn  t^e  &i6rarg  of 

Oprofeecor  03?iffiam  J^^^^S  <B>reen 

Q^equeat^cb  6g  ^im  fo 
t^e  feifirarg  of 

(prtnceton  C^eofo^tcaf  ^eminatg 
1354-80 

Copy  ^ 


y 


u 


-€         i:yl^tj',/u 


Anti-Higher  Criticism 


TESTIMONY  TO  THE  INFALLIBILITY 


THE    BIBLE 


Professor  Howard  Osgood,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

President  W.  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  William  G.  Moorehead,  D.D. 

Talbot  W.  Chambers,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

James  H.  Brookes,  D.D. 
George  S.  Bishop,   D.D. 

B.  B.  Tyler,  D.D. 

Professor  Ernst  F.  Stroeter,  Ph.D. 

Professor  James  ]\L  Stifler,  D.D. 

William  Dinwiddie,  D.D. 

EDITED    AND    COMPILED    BV 

Rev.   L.  W.^MUNHALL,  M.A. 

Author  of  ''  Furnishing  for  Workers^''  "  The  Lords  Return  and  Kindred  Truth,' 
'■  The  Highest  Critics  vs.  The  Higher  Critics,"  etc. 


NEW  YORK:    HUNT  &  EATON 

CINCINNATI :  CRANSTON  &  CURTS 

1894 


Copyright,  1893,  by 

HUNT    &    EATON, 

New  York. 


Composition,  elfctrotypinj,  printing,  and  binding  br 

HUNT  &    EATON, 

ISO  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 


THIS     VOLUME 

IS    AFFECTIONATELY    DEDICATED    TO 

JAMES   H.    BROOKES,  D.D., 

\VH(J, 

IN    EVERY    FIBER   OF    HIS    BIG    BODY,    EVERY   THROB   OF    HIS   KIND    HEART, 
AND    EVERY   THOUGHT    OF    HIS   GREAT    BRAIN, 

IS    LOYAL    TO    THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES    OF    GOD, 

L.  W.  MUNHALL. 


PREFACE 


For  the  past  six  years  I  have  conducted  a  Bible  Con- 
ference each  summer  by  the  seaside.  It  has  been  inter- 
denominational in  its  character.  The  object  has  been 
"  the  promotion  of  prayerful,  critical,  exegetical  study 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures."  God  has  given  the  Conference 
most  signal  tokens  of  his  gracious  favor.  Because  of 
the  audacious  and  persistent  assaults  made  upon  the 
integrity  of  the  Bible  by  many  pastors,  editors,  theolog- 
ical professors,  and  other  educators  belonging  to  ortho- 
dox Churches,  and  because  of  the  impudent  assumption 
of  these  gentlemen  that  scholarship  is  almost  wholly 
with  them  in  their  methods,  work,  and  conclusions,  I 
decided  that  the  testimony  of  the  last  Conference  should 
be  directed  against  these  assaults  and  assumptions. 
After  careful  and  protracted  consultation  with  a  large 
number  of  brethren  prominent  in  the  councils  and  work 
of  the  Churches  in  this  country,  who  without  an  excep- 
tion approved  of  my  plan,  the  call  was  issued  over  the 
signatures  of  the  following  gentlemen  : 

Presbyterian. — Ex-President  Joseph  F.  Tuttle,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Crawfordsville,  Ind. ;  Charles  Augustus  Stoddard,  D.D.,  Editor  New 
York  Observer;  Pastor  James  H.  Brookes,  D.D.,  St.  Louis;  A.  T. 
Pierson,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Editor  Missionary  Review  of  the 
World;  Pastor  Thomas  A.  Hoyt,  D.D.,  Philadelphia  ;  S.  P.  Harbi- 
son, Pittsburg;  William  J.  Erdman,  D.D.,  Asheville,  N.  C. 

Baptist.— Y2i%\or  A.  J.  Gordon,  D.D..  Boston  ;  Professor  J.  M.  Stif- 
ler,  D.D.,  Crozer  Theological  Seminary;  Pastor  A.  C.  Dixon,  D.D., 
Brooklyn  ;  J.  C.  Foster,  D.D.,  Boston,  Associate  Editor  ]Vatchman: 
Pastor  J.  B.  Hawthorn.  D.D.,  Atlanta;  Colonel  Levi  K.  Fuller,  Brat- 


11  PREFACE. 

tleborough,  Vt.,  Governor  of  Vermont  ,  Pastor  John  T.  Beckley, 
D.D.,  Philadelphia. 

Methodist  Episcopal. — Professor  Luther  T.  Townsend,  D.D.,  Bos- 
ton University ;  Professor  E.  F.  Stroeter,  D.D.,  Denver  University ; 
H.  K. Carroll,  LL.D.,  Associate  Editor  Neiv  York  Independent;  Henry 
Foster,  M.D.,  Clifton  Springs;  H.  B.  Andrews,  Syracuse;  William 
Nast,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Cincinnati  (German  M.  E.)  ;  Professor  W.  P.  Cod- 
dington,  D.D.,  Syracuse  University. 

Congregational. — Pastor  Edward  P.  Goodwin,  D.D.,  Chicago; 
Pastor  Albert  H.  Plumb,  D.D.,  Boston  ;  Joseph  Cook,  LL.D.,  Boston  ; 
Major  General  O.  O.  Howard,  U.S.A.,  New  York  city  ;  Pastor  Sam- 
uel H.  Virgin,  D.D.,  New  York  city. 

Protestant  Episcopal.— V&xy  Rev.  Dean  H.  M.  Hart,  D.D.,  Den- 
ver; Rector  Julius  E.  Grammer,  D.D.,  Baltimore;  Robert  C.  Mat- 
lack,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Secretary  Evangelical  Education  Society  ; 
Russell  Sturgis,  Jr.,  Boston  ;  L.  W.  Bancroft,  D.D.,  Brooklyn. 

Lutheran. — Professor  L.  A.  Gotwald,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary, 
Springfield,  O. ;  Pastor  M.  Rhodes,  D.D.,  St.  Louis  ;  Professor  R.  F. 
Weidner,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary,  Chicago ;  Pastor  J.  B.  Rem- 
ensnyder,  D.D.,  New  York  city. 

United  Brethren. — Bishop  John  Weaver,  D.D.,  Dayton  ;  G.  A. 
Funkhouser,  D.D.,  President  Theological  Seminary,  Daj'ton  ;  John 
Dodds,  Dayton,  O. 

Southern  Presbyterian. — Professor  William  Dinwiddie,  D.D.,  Char- 
lottesville, Va.  ;  Pastor  W.  U.  Murkland,  D.D.,  Baltimore ;  Pastor 
J.  W.  Walden,  D.D.,  New  Orleans. 

Methodist  Episcopal,  5^;/////.— Bishop  O.  P.  Fitzgerald,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Atlanta,  Ga. ;  Pastor  John  T.  Wightman,  D.D.,  Washington 
City;  Colonel  William  A.  Hemphill.  Atlanta. 

Disciples. — Pastor  B.  B.  Tyler,  D.D.,  New  York  city ;  Professor 
Amzi  Atwater,  A.M.,  Indiana  State  University. 

Cumherland  Presbyterian. — W.  H.  Black,  D.D.,  President  Mis- 
souri Valley  College ;  W.  J.  Darby,  D.D.,  Evansville,  Secretary  Ed- 
ucation Society. 

Reformed  Episcopal. — Bishop  William  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  Phila- 
delphia; Samuel  Ashhurst,  M.D.,  Philadelphia. 

United  Presbyterian. — Professor  W.  G.  Moorehead,  D.D.,  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  Xenia,  O. ;  Pastor  M.  M.  Gibson,  D.D.,  San  Francisco. 

Friends. — J.  J.  Mills,  President  Earlham  College,  Richmond,  Ind. 

German  Reformed. — Professor  James  L  Good,  D.D.,  Theological 
Department,  Ursinus  College. 


PREFACE.  Ill 

Reformed  Dutch. — Pastor  George  S.  Bishop,  D.D..  Orange,  N.  J. 

Moravian. — Professor  J.Taylor  Hamilton,  D.D..  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Bethlehem. 

Collegiate  Reformed. — Pastor  David  James  Burrell,  D.D.,  New 
York  city. 

The  Conference  met  in  Educational  Hall,  Asbury 
Park,  N.  J.,  August  1 1,  1893,  and  continued  its  sessions  ten 
days.  The  sessions  were  attended  by  from  two  hundred 
to  two  thousand  persons.  First  and  last  between  three 
and  four  thousand  persons,  a  large  number  being  clergy- 
men, were  present. 

Many  of  the  addresses  were  so  scholarly,  comprehen- 
sive, convincing,  and  satisfactory  to  honest  and  reverent 
minds  that  numerous  requests  were  made  by  those  who 
heard  them  that  they  should  be  published  in  book  form. 
These  requests  are  gladly  heeded,  through  the  kindness 
of  the  learned  and  devoted  gentlemen  who  delivered 
them ;  and  all  the  more  so,  because  the  rationalists  are 
pushing  their  publications  upon  the  attention  of  pastors, 
teachers,  and  students  throughout  the  land  in  a  most 
energetic  fashion. 

The  volume  is  sent  on  its  way  with  the  sincere  desire 
and  earnest  prayer  that  it  may  be  owned  of  God  in  con- 
firming many  in  their  belief  that  the  Bible  is  the  infalli- 
ble, life-imparting,  hope-inspiring,  unfailing  word  of  the 
living  God,  and  that  many  wavering  and  doubting  ones 
may  be  helped  to  hereafter  speak  and  teach  "as  one 
that  had  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes." 

L.   W.   MUNHALL. 

Germantoivn,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  Nov.  14,  1893. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTORY 7 

LEARNED  DOUBT  AND  THE  LIVING  WORD. 

By   Howard   Osgood,    D.D.,    LL.D.,    Rochester   Theological 

Seminary 13 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

By  W.   Henry   CiREEx,    D.D.,    LL.D.,   Professor  in    Princeton 

Theological  Seminary 26 

MOSAIC  ORIGIN  OF    IHE  PENTATEUCH. 

By   W.   Henrv  Green,    D.D.,    LL.D.,  Professor   in    Princeton 

Theological  Seminary 71 

THE  BOOK  OF  JOB. 

By  Professor  Wilu.wi  G.  Moorehead,  D.D.,  United  Presby- 
terian  Theological  Seminary,  Xenia,  0 96 

THE  BOOK  OF  PSALMS.— (TWO  PARTS.) 

By  Talbot  W.  Chambers,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Senior  Minister  of  the 
Collegiate  Dutch  Church  of  New  York. 

I.  The  Nature  of  the  Psalter 115 

II.  The  Authority  of  the  Psalter  and  its  Uses 144 

ISAIAH. 

By  Pastor  James  H.  Brookes,  D.D.,  St.  Louis 165 

THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL  — ITS    AUTHORSHIP,    INTEG- 
RITY, AND  STRUCTURE. 
By  Pastor  George  S.  Bishop,  D.D.,  Orange,  N.  J 191 

THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER. 

By  Pastor  B.  B.  Pyler,  D.D.,  New  York  City 218 


6  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

MESSIANIC  PROPHECIES. 

By  Professor  William  G.  Moorehead,  D.D.,  United  Pioliy- 

terian  Theological  Seminary,  Xenia,  0 236 

THE  GOSPELS.— (TWO  PARTS.) 

By      Professor      Ernst       F.      Stroeter,      Ph.D.,      Denver 
University. 

Part    I 253 

Part  II 270 

THE  COUNCIL  IN  JERUSALEM.— (ACTS  XV.) 

By  Professor    James    M.  Stifler,   D.D.,  Crozer    Theological 

Seminary 291 

THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS. 

By  William  DiNwinniE,  D.D 304 

FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN. 

By  Professor  James   M.  Stiflf.r,    D.D.,   Crozer  Theological 

Seminary 3I7 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  BIBLE  TO  ITS  OWN  INTEG- 
RITY. 
By  Pastor  James  H.  Brookes,  D.D.,   St.  Louis 331 


INTRODUCTORY. 


The  addresses  composing  this  volume  were  delivered 
before  the  Sixth  Annual  Interdenominational  Seaside 
Bible  Conference,  in  Educational  Hall,  Asbury  Park, 
N.  J.,  August  II-2I,  1893. 

Upon  calling  the  Conference  to  order  the  chairman, 
Dr.  L.  W.  Munhall,  evangelist,  Philadelphia,  delivered 
the  following  address : 

"  Dear  Brethren  :  We  are  met  here  to-day  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Our  object  is  not  only  to  vin- 
dicate God's  insulted  and  dishonored  word,  but  also  to 
exalt  it  to  the  extent  of  our  ability. 

"  We  know  how  in  times  past  the  enemies  of  God 
have  done  their  utmost  to  bring  the  Bible  into  contempt 
and  to  destroy  it.  We  know  how  they  utterly  failed  and 
were  themselves  brought  into  confusion  and  contempt. 
In  these  days  we  are  called  upon  to  contemplate  the 
most  extraordinary  and  astounding  spectacle  of  many 
pastors,  teachers,  and  editors  belonging  to  orthodox 
denominations,  making  the  very  same  fight  against  the 
word  of  God,  and  using  the  same  weapons  as  were 
made  and  used  by  Astruc,  Voltaire,  and  Paine. 

"  The  destructionists  have  made  no  advance,  positively 
no  advance,  beyond  the  work  of  Voltaire,  as  I  think 
will  be  made  very  plain  to  this  Conference  by  those  who 
are  in  every  way  competent  to  speak. 

"  The  work  of  these  critics  in  America  and  Great  Britain 
is  largely  that  of  threshing  old  straw,'  and  thereby  throw- 


8  INTRODUCTORY. 

ing  dust  into  the  eyes  of  the  spiritually  near-sighted,  and 
thus  '  darkening  sound  doctrine,'  They  seem  to  be  ready 
to  accept,  without  hesitation,  any  criticism  of  the  Bible 
that  bears  the  imprint  of  rationalistic  Germany.  The 
late  Professor  Christlieb  once  asked  a  friend  of  mine, 
'  Why  do  Americans  and  Englishmen  gather  from  the 
gutter  so  much  of  the  theological  rubbish  we  Germans 
throw  away?  '  And  there  is  no  doubt  in  my  own  mind 
but  that,  as  suggested  by  the  great  theological  professor 
of  Bonn,  many  of  the  critics  in  this  country  are  but  theo- 
logical scavengers. 

"  I  am  quite  sure  I  voice  the  feelings  of  all  the  speak- 
ers who  will  occupy  this  platform  when  I  say  we  are 
in  favor  of  all  honest  and  reverent  criticism,  higher  and 
lower.  We  surely  desire  to  possess  ourselves  of  all  trust- 
worthy information  concerning  the  authors  and  dates  of 
the  various  books  of  the  Bible — their  grammatical  con- 
struction and  scientific  and  historic  reliability.  Further- 
more, I  am  very  certain  that  these  speakers  are  ready, 
any  moment,  to  abandon  any  traditional  views  of  the 
sacred  volume  that  may  be  proved,  demonstrably,  to  be 
erroneous.  We  will  not  continue  to  believe  that  which 
is  not  true  because  the  fathers  believed  and  taught  it, 
if  we  knoiv  they  were  in  error.  And  I  am  equally  certain 
that  they  are  unwilling  to  abandon  traditional  views  for 
which  the  scholarly  fathers  successfully  contended,  which 
God  has  honored  by  his  favor  and  blessing,  and  which 
have  been  baptized  by  the  prayers  and  tears  and  blood 
of  those  '  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,'  at  the 
dictation  of  rationalists,  who  in  a  most  irrational  manner 
argue  from  postulates  that  are  subversive  of  the  most 
holy  and  venerated  things.  There  are  certain  things  we 
most  respectfully  insist  upon,  namely : 

"  I.  That  inability  to  reconcile  apparent  discrepancies 
in  God's  word,  or   to    understand   certain    philological. 


INTRODUCTORY.  9 

scientific,  and  historic  statements  does  not  prove  the 
presence  of  inaccuracies  and  errors.  The  Assyriologist, 
Egyptologist,  historian,  philologist,  and  scientist  are  at 
work.  Within  the  past  twenty  years  many  apparent 
discrepancies  and  errors  have  been  reconciled  and  made 
clear  as  the  result  of  their  labors.  The  natural  and 
reasonable  presumption  therefore  is  that  other  difficul- 
ties will  disappear  as  they  prosecute  their  work.  We,  at 
least,  will  possess  our  souls  in  peace,  knowing  that  it  is 
true,  '  Forever,  O  Lord,  thy  word  is  settled  in  heaven.' 

"  2.  That  any  criticism  of  the  word  of  God  based 
upon  mere  assumptions  or  presuppositions  is  discredit- 
able to  honest,  comprehensive  scholarship.  This,  I  be- 
lieve, is  largely  the  common  method  of  the  rationalistic 
school. 

"  3.  That  the  professional  critic  is  more  likely  to  be 
wrong  than  right,  and  is,  therefore,  an  unsafe  guide. 
I  mean  by  professional  critic  one  who  spends  his 
time  and  strength  in  trying  to  find  some  error  or 
discrepancy  in  the  Bible,  and,  if  he  thinks  he  does,  re- 
joiceth  as  '  one  that  findeth  great  spoil  ;  '  who  hopes, 
while  he  works,  that  he  may  succeed,  thinking  thereby 
to  obtain  a  name  and  notoriety  for  himself. 

"4.  That  any  method  of  biblical  criticism  that  ignores 
the  supernatural  and  lowers  the  Bible  to  the  level  of 
other  books  is  deserving  of  unqualified  condemnation, 
since  God's  thoughts  are  as  much  higher  than  man's  as 
the  heaven  is  above  the  earth. 

"  5.  That  the  criticism  which  minimizes,  ignores,  or 
antagonizes  the  testimony  of  the  Bible  to  its  own  author- 
ship, character,  and  integrity  ;  that  denies  to  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  the  right  and  ability  to  testify 
in  such  matters,  is  subversive  of  the  very  foundation 
principles  of  our  holy  religion  and  destructive,  to  the  last 
degree,  of  the  Christian  faith. 


lO  INTRODUCTORY. 

"  6.  That  any  criticism  of  the  Bible  that  fails  to  make 
proper  account  of  its  miraculous  formation  and  preserva- 
tion, of  its  transforming  influence  upon  the  hearts  and 
lives  of  men,  and  of  the  silent  and  irresistible  power  it 
has  exerted  over  the  nations,  is  certainly  and  necessarily 
faulty. 

"  7.  That  any  criticism  wholly  lacking  in  the  elements 
of  common  sense  should  be  viewed  with  suspicion.  The 
E,  J,  JE,  D,  P,  PE,  and  R  method  of  composition 
which  the  higher  critics  have  invented  for  the  Penta- 
teuchal  books,  and  which  may  be  properly  called  the 
'  crazy  quilt  '  method,  is  devoid  of  every  principle  of 
common  sense.  No  other  book  was  so  constructed,  no 
book  could  be  so  constructed ;  and  yet,  as  they  argue 
the  case,  it  must  be  that  every  other  book,  not  even  ex- 
cepting the  Dictionary,  was  made  just  in  this  same  fash- 
ion. The  argument  that,  because  there  appears  to  be  a 
difference  in  the  literary  style  of  the  first  thirty-nine  and 
last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  Isaiah,  therefore  one  man 
could  not  have  written  the  entire  book,  is  also  lacking  in 
this  essential  element ;  for  does  not  common  sense  tell 
us  that  a  man  may  have  more  than  one  style  of  writing, 
and  that  one's  style  of  writing  may  change  with  the 
passing  years  ? 

"  8.  That  the  claim  that  all  scholars  are  at  one  with  the 
rationalistic  methods,  work,  and  results  of  the  higher 
criticism,  excepting  in  the  cases  of  a  very  few  who  are  so 
wedded  to  traditionalism  as  to  be  incompetent  to  arrive 
at  an  unbiased  and  honest  conclusion,  is  audacious  in 
assumption,  untruthful  in  assertion,  uncharitable  in  spirit, 
and  can  deceive  none  but  the  conceited,  weak-minded, 
and  ignorant. 

"9.  That  scholarship  alone  is  a  very  dangerous  thing 
to  the  cause  of  truth.  '  The  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity 
against  God  ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to   the  law  of  God, 


INTRODUCTORY.  II 

neither  indeed  can  it  be.'  In  these  days  there  is  an  in- 
creasingly great  disposition  to  exalt  and  magnify  human 
learning,  and  to  forget  that  the  '  foolishness  of  God  is 
wiser  than  men,'  and  that  '  the  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God.'  We  need  constantly  to  be  upon  our  guard 
against  this  peril. 

"  lo.  That  we  recognize  our  entire  dependence  upon 
God  for  light  in  order  to  properly  read  his  holy  word. 
Without  his  help  we  shall  be  unable  to  make  right  uses 
of  the  great  stores  of  information  the  scholars  have 
gathered  from  many  sources.  We  rejoice  that  the  dear 
Lord  has  not  left  us  in  darkness  and  ignorance  to  grope 
our  way.  The  promises  of  his  word  assure  us  of  all 
needed  light  and  instruction.  All  he  would  have  us 
know  we  may  and  sometime  will  know. 

"  Jesus  said  to  his  sorrowing  disciples,  '  But  the  Com- 
forter, even  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send 
in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things.'  And,  '  How- 
beit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth.'  We  are  also  told,  '  But  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  :  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him  :  neither  can  he  know  them, 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned.'  And  again  : 
'  But  the  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of  him  abideth 
in  you,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you  :  but 
as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things,  and  is 
truth,  and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye 
shall  abide  in  him.' 

"  Therefore,  brethren,  let  us  look  heavenward  for  help, 
and  in  humble  dependence  upon  the  Holy  Spirit  give 
ourselves  to  much  prayer,  that  the  influerice  of  this  Con- 
ference may  be  salutary  and  very  far-reaching,  to  the  glory 
of  God's  grace  in  Jesus  Christ." 


ANTI-HIGHER  CRITICISM. 


LEARNED  DOUBT  AND  THE  LIVING  WORD. 


BY   HOWARD   O.SGOOD,   D.D.,    LL.D., 
Rochester   Theological  Seminary. 

"  Say  not  thou,  What  is  the  cause  that  the  former 
days  were  better  than  these  ?  for  thou  dost  not  inquire 
wisely  concerning  this."  The  former  days  were  not 
better  than  these.  Since  the  fall  of  Adam  there  has 
ever  been  the  tremendous  conflict  between  faith  and  un- 
belief. From  the  death  of  Abel  at  the  hand  of  his  elder 
brother,  Cain,  faith  has  been  heralded  as  weak  and  ready 
to  die  by  those  who  rest  only  in  the  things  of  sense,  who 
build  cities  and  inherit  the  earth.  As  regards  the  whole 
world  faith  has  ever  been  in  the  apparently  weak  mi- 
nority, and  unbelief  has  been  the  popular  paean  of  the 
vast  and  powerful  majority.  It  is  so  now.  Our  day  has 
its  conflict,  and  some  who  know  little  of  the  many  far 
more  terrific  battles  of  past  ages  tremble  for  fear  lest 
unbelief  in  this  smaller  contest  shall  prevail  over  the 
captain  of  the  Lord's  host  and  snatch  away  the  treasure 
of  believers.  Better  men  than  ourselves  have  had  their 
days  of  fear  and  trembling  for  the  safety  of  the  ark  of 
God.  The  psalmist,  when  he  looked  on  the  tide  of  un- 
belief and  its  apparent  prosperity,  was  staggered  and 
knew  not  what  to  say,  but  found  the  calmness  of  assur- 
ance when  he  went  into  God's  house  and  learned  his 
3 


14  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

secret.  John  the  Baptist  in  prison  under  the  power  of 
unbeHef  and  immorahty  could  find  no  sufficient  answer 
to  the  doubt  that  oppressed  his  heart  until  lie  sent  to 
Christ,  and  he  that  made  him  and  loved  him  gave  his 
faithful  witness  the  supreme  visible  proof  that  God  was 
on  the  field  though  darkened  eyes  did  not  see  him.  "  Go 
your  way  and  tell  John  the  things  which  ye  do  hear  and 
see :  the  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk,  the 
lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and  the  dead  are 
raised  up,andthepoorhave  good  tidings  preached  to  them. 
And  blessed  is  he,  whosoever  shall  find  none  occasion 
of  stumbling  in  me."  That  same  proof  the  omnipotent, 
loving  Saviour  gives  to-day,  in  the  heat  and  dust  of  this 
conflict,  to  all  who  find  no  occasion  of  stumbling  in  him. 
It  is  often  supposed  that  only  the  vulgar  and  vile,  the 
unlearned  and  ignorant,  deliberately  oppose  the  Bible  as 
the  supernaturally  inspired  word  of  God  ;  that  no  one 
who  studies  the  Bible  year  after  year  can  fail  to  be  con- 
vinced of  its  supernatural  character.  The  vulgar  and 
vile,  the  unlearned  and  ignorant  opponents  of  the  Bible 
have  never  been  any  serious  obstacle  in  the  progress  of 
Christianity.  The  lowest  forms  of  morality  condemn 
them,  and  Christianity  says  with  David,  Let  them  alone 
and  let  them  curse,  as  it  passes  by.  But  when  great 
natural  abilities  are  reinforced  by  great  learning  in  the 
Bible,  and,  with  all  the  power  of  the  highest  skill  in 
marshaling  their  forces  and  sending  them  forth  in  the 
witchery  of  attractive  style,  these  highly  cultivated  abili- 
ties wage  war  on  the  Bible,  then  it  seems  as  if  there  were 
really  lions  in  the  way,  and  some  Christians  think  of  turning 
back.  Some  make  a  momentary  peace  by  going  over  to 
the  side  of  the  lions,  and  others  would  open  the  way 
by  feeding  the  lions  on  all  that  they  demand.  But  the 
simple-hearted  believers  who  keep  their  roll  learn  that 
the  objects  of  their  fear  are  tied,  and  they  march  boldly 


LEARNED   DOUBT   AND   THE    LIVING   WORD.  1 5 

on  past  the  roar  and  enter  safely  with  their  roll  into  the 
home  where  they  would  be. 

If  we  go  back  two  hundred  years  to  England  we  shall 
find  a  series  of  champions  against  the  Bible's  being 
the  revealed  word  of  God  who,  in  the  prestige  of  place, 
of  learning,  of  attractive  style,  of  skill  in  debate,  were  the 
j>eers  of  the  men  of  any  age  of  the  world.  Blount, 
Toland,  Shaftesbury,  Collins,  VVoolston,  Tindal,  Morgan, 
Bolingbroke,  Hume,  to  name  only  a  few,  stood  abreast  of 
the  foremost  men  of  their  day  in  learning.  Shaftesbury 
and  Bolingbroke  were  masters  of  lofty  and  popular  style 
in  English.  Some  of  the  works  of  these  champions  were 
issued  in  editions  of  twenty  thousand,  and  some  of  their 
works  reached  in  a  few  months  a  twelfth  edition.  None 
of  the  answers  to  these  works  ever  attained  a  success  at 
all  to  be  compared  with  the  popularity  of  their  oppo- 
nents. Cambridge  and  Oxford  were  the  schools  from 
which  most  of  these  men  came.  The  teaching  in  both 
these  great  universities  was  very  far  from  a  living  faith 
in  God  and  his  word.  Yea,  even  many  of  the  answers 
to  these  antibiblical  writers  contained  concessions  to  the 
deistical  arguments  that  made  them  weak  against  the 
victorious  tone  of  their  opponents,  and  the  deists  were 
not  slow  to  prove  their  arguments  against  the  Bible  by 
the  aggregate  of  these  concessions.  It  seems  hard  for 
men  to  learn  that  a  hungry  lion  seeking  his  prey  will 
not  be  appeased  with  anything  less  than  their  blood  and 
flesh  and  bones. 

There  is  nothing  to-day  in  the  ranks  of  antibiblical 
writings  to  compare  with  the  popularity  and  literary  suc- 
cess of  their  predecessors  in  England  one  hundred  and 
fifty  to  two  hundred  years  ago.  Then  the  Established 
Church  was  largely  deistical.  The  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists  in  England  were  deeply  tinctured 
with  rationalism  or  deism.     The  Baptists  were  only  half 


l6  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

alive.  The  Methodists  had  not  yet  arisen.  It  really 
seemed  as  if  in  spite  of  and  under  cover  of  an  orthodox 
liturgy  and  orthodox  articles  the  English  Church  was 
fast  becoming  the  home  of  bold,  undisguised  rationalism. 
The  most  popular  poets,  Prior,  Swift,  and  Pope,  were 
deists.  Pope,  though  a  professed  Roman  Catholic,  in 
his  "  Essay  on  Man  "  formulates  the  deistical  creed  Bol- 
ingbroke  taught  him. 

The  arguments  of  these  able  writers  were  directed 
against  the  general  credibility  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments as  tested  by  their  common  sense  ;  against  proph- 
ecy, which,  they  proved  to  their  satisfaction,  was  myth 
and  legend  ;  against  miracles,  which  they  asserted  could 
not  be  proved  by  any  human  testimony  whatever.  This 
was  the  age  when  enemies  and  defenders  of  the  Bible 
appealed  to  reason  as  the  final  arbiter  of  the  debate.  If 
one  wishes  to  read  all  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  reason 
as  the  judge  of  revelation  he  must  make  himself  ac- 
quainted with  the  best  writers  of  this  period  from  1700 
to  1750,  and  not  rest  in  the  puny  imitations  of  this  day. 
The  rationalism  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  born  and 
nursed  and  grew  great  in  England  before  it  went  over  to 
conquer  Germany. 

Bishop  Butler  in  1736  says:  "It  is  taken  for  granted 
by  many  persons  that  Christianity  is  not  so  much  as  a 
subject  for  inquiry,  but  that  it  is  now  at  length  discov- 
ered to  be  fictitious.  And  accordingly  they  treat  it  as  if 
in  the  present  age  this  were  an  agreed  point  among  all 
people  of  discernment,  and  nothing  remained  but  to  set 
it  up  as  a  principal  subject  of  mirth  and  ridicule." 

The  plays,  the  novels,  the  biographies,  the  poets,  the 
papers,  the  Spectator  and  Tatlcr,  all  bear  witness  to  the 
popularity  of  antibiblical  opinions,  to  the  frequent  sepa- 
ration in  the  clergy  and  members  of  churches  between 
doctrines  and  life,  between  profession  and  piety,  and  to 


LEARNED   DOUBT   AND   THE    LIVING   WORD.  17 

the  swollen  tide  of  immorality  from  the  court  down  to 
the  alehouse.  The  efforts  in  the  pulpit  were  essays  on 
virtue,  patience,  resignation  under  difficulties,  cold  and 
drear,  without  a  note  of  the  ruin  of  sin  or  of  the  infinite 
love  of  God,  appealing  to  the  heart  of  man  by  the  free 
gift  of  his  Son  to  die  for  sinners.^  Nothing  called  for 
louder  denunciation,  nothing  aroused  and  disturbed  the 
rheumatic  stiffness  of  mere  professional  religion  so  much 
as  a  display  of  zeal. 

It  was  in  an  age  like  this  that  the  same  Bishop  Butler, 
the  author  of  the  renowned  Analogy,  could  issue  pastoral 
letters  against  all  enthusiasm  in  religion,  as  if  there  were 
any  need  of  protesting  against  enthusiasm  in  the  graves 
or  against  vivacity  among  skeletons. 

In  1726  a  young  Frenchman  of  thirty-two  was  intro- 
duced by  Bolingbroke  to  this  literary  society  of  English 
atheists,  deists,  unbelievers,  who  w^ere  on  the  top  wave 
of  popularity.  Catholic  France  under  Louis  XV  would 
not  suffer  men  to  print  what  they  wished  to  say  about 
the  Bible  and  the  Church.  Whatever  the  life  might  be 
a  certain  decorum  must  be  observed  in  printing.  But  in 
England  the  liberty  of  infidel  printing  was  a  revelation 
to  Voltaire,  who  returned  to  France  to  make  known 
what  he  had  learned  in  England  both  of  doctrine  and  of 
liberty.  To  his  latest  day  Voltaire  is  full  of  the  praises 
of  his  friend  Bolingbroke,  and  in  his  view,  that  a  witty  lie 
is  always  better  than  a  sober  truth,  he  pays  the  highest 
compliment  possible  to  Bolingbroke  by  styling  his  foulest 
attack  on  the  New  Testament  "  Lord  Bolingbroke 's 
Examination,"  though  Bolingbroke  died  many  years  be- 
fore it  was  penned.  Those  who  are  familiar  with  the 
literature  and  history  of  France  in  the  last  century  are 
unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  Voltaire  was  the  most 
powerful  authority  in  France,  as  he  certainly  was  the 
most  popular  writer.     There  is  no  literary  success  at  the 


iS  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

present  day  at  all  to  be  compared  to  his.  His  works 
were  published  in  enormous  editions  for  France,  and 
were  immediately  translated  and  were  sold  by  every 
bookseller  in  Europe  and  Russia.  Of  the  literary  world 
of  Europe  he  was  the  crowned  king.  Roman  Catholics 
and  Protestants,  yea,  Presbyterian  ministers  of  Geneva 
and  German  Protestants,  paid  abject  court  to  him  and 
professed  themselves  at  one  with  him  in  his  creed,  which 
was  deism  pure  and  simple,  as  he  often  says.  His  was 
the  spirit  of  all  the  popular  writers  of  the  eighteenth 
century  in  France.  Taine  has  drawn  a  true  picture  of 
the  godlessness  and  the  immorality  of  that  age.  A  few 
years  after  Voltaire  was  crowned  on  the  stage  in  Paris 
by  king  and  priests  and  people,  the  king  was  dethroned 
and  murdered  ;  the  guillotine  was  at  work  day  and  night 
to  fill  the  streets  with  human  blood  ;  priests  and  people 
proclaimed  the  Christian  religion  and  churches  forever 
renounced,  and  reason  and  nature  the  only  objects  of 
rational  worship. 

Long  before  Voltaire  and  the  encyclopedists  had  suc- 
ceeded in  poisoning  every  literary  stream  in  France  with 
deism  the  works  of  the  English  deists  had  been  trans- 
lated into  German  and  were  read  in  every  university  as 
the  avatars  of  a  new  freedom  and  sound  logic.  The  State 
and  Church  in  Germany  had  united  in  imposing  the 
standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  held  and  enforced  it  with  an 
iron  hand.  Here,  too,  there  had  been  a  long  separation 
between  orthodoxy  and  a  moral  life.  In  great  numbers, 
both  of  ministers  and  people,  the  life  was  notoriously 
foul,  while  the  lips  taught  as  doctrines  the  precepts  of 
men.  Then  in  1740  there  arose  on  the  throne  of  Prus- 
sia the  overshadowing  incarnation  of  the  cold,  clear, 
cynical,  victorious  spirit  of  the  century,  who  knew  no 
God,  who  cared  for  no  religion,  whose  scepter  was  the 
sword,  whose  friends  were  the  deists  and  the  drill  ser- 


LEARNED   DOUBT  AND   THE   LIVING  WORD.  I9 

geant — Frederick  the  Great.  His  conquests  in  war,  his 
firm,  wise  rule  in  peace,  his  destruction  at  one  blow  of 
all  the  old  tests  of  orthodoxy,  his  unceasing  effort  to 
plant  agnosticism  in  every  school  and  university,  were 
the  powerful  allies  of  the  teachings  of  the  English  writers, 
and  soon  in  Germany  in  every  university,  in  numberless 
pulpits,  from  the  most  popular  presses,  the  English  argu- 
ments against  the  Bible  were  adorned  with  the  treasures 
of  German  learning,  and  in  the  leading  literary  circles 
no  man  was  tolerated  who  believed  the  Bible  was  any- 
thing more  than  a  purely  human  book  of  legends  and 
myths  interspersed  with  some  good  moral  precepts. 

In  all  this  dark  history  of  the  learned  world  in  Eng- 
land, France,  and  Germany  in  the  eighteenth  century 
the  darkest  shade  is  the  entire  defection  or  the  agnostic 
laxity  of  great  numbers  of  professedly  Christian  ministers 
of  every  name,  "a  generation  that  set  not  their  heart 
aright,  and  whose  spirit  was  not  steadfast  with  God  ;  " 
they  "  turned  back  in  the  day  of  battle,"  and  "  kept  not 
the  covenant  of  God."  They  quickly  bowed  before  pop- 
ular literary  clamor ;  they  ceased  to  teach  that  the  Bible 
is  God's  word  or  inspired  ;  that  Christ  is  God  ;  that  sin 
brings  eternal  ruin ;  that  Christ  is  the  only  Saviour. 
Instead,  they  taught  that  man  can  never  reach  certain 
knowledge  ;  that  God  is  incomprehensible  ;  that  Christ 
was  a  good  man  and  our  exemplar ;  that  morality  was 
the  only  test  and  the  only  passport  to  a  happy  eternity. 

In  England,  France,  and  Germany  deism  and  agnos- 
ticism are  adorned  with  numerous  names  of  men  who 
were  learned,  exceedingly  able,  and,  in  many  cases,  of 
characters  unimpeached.  Outside  the  assertion  and 
defense  of  their  antagonism  to  the  Bible  as  God's  word 
many  of  these  men  have  left  works,  even  on  the  Bible, 
which  have  been  of  the  greatest  service  to  all  students. 
None  of  these  deists,  rationalists,  or  agnostics  were  more 


20  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

set  in  their  views  than  Gesenius,  and  yet  no  man  has 
done  more  in  this  or  any  other  century  for  the  grammar 
and  lexicography  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Nothing  is  ever 
gained  toward  a  just  conclusion  by  denying  or  omitting 
the  real  merits  of  others. 

Looking  at  this  falling  away  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  remembering  the  devotion,  the  learning,  and  the  im- 
mense progress  of  spiritual  Christianity  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  in  England  and  France  and  Germany,  we 
may  feel  and  ask  with  the  psalmist,  "  Will  the  Lord  cast 
off  forever?  .  .  .  Doth  his  promise  fail  for  evermore?" 
Here  were  the  desert  and  the  bare  mountains  made  by 
man,  where  all  spiritual  life  would  have  been  smothered 
but  for  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  When  the  literary 
and  learned  circles  were  jesting  over  the  Bible  as  waste 
paper,  finally  discredited,  God  was  making  that  word 
life  and  peace  and  joy  to  many  souls  in  London  and  all 
over  England.  Wherever  men  went  with  the  Bible  and 
urged  upon  men  its  loving,  tender  call  to  sinners  to  re- 
pent and  believe  the  Gospel,  to  rest  in  the  promises  of 
God  to  the  chief  of  sinners,  to  follow  Jesus  and  cleave  to 
him  in  singleness  of  heart,  to  accept  the  Bible  "  as  it  is 
in  truth  the  word  of  God,"  these  fountains  sprang  up  in 
the  desert  and  streams  broke  forth  in  the  bald  mountain 
tops,  "the  wilderness  and  the  solitary  place"  were  glad, 
and  the  desert  rejoiced  and  blossomed  as  the  rose. 
Watts  in  London,  Doddridge  in  Northampton,  James 
Foster  in  London  were  ty[)es  of  the  best  class  of  Dis- 
senters ;  here  and  there  in  the  Established  Church  were 
bright  and  fertile  oases,  sometimes  in  the  cities,  more 
frequently  in  the  country.  It  was  in  this  century  of  ra- 
tionalism that  two  of  the  sweetest  singers  of  the  love 
and  grace  of  God,  Watts  and  Wesley,  poured  forth  their 
notes  of  song  to  be  the  precious  inheritance  of  all  be- 
lievers for  all  time.     The  names  and  numbers  of  faithful 


LEARNED    DOUBT   AND   THE    LIVING   WORD.  21 

believers  and  preachers  who,  despite  all  rationalism 
elsewhere,  offered  with  persuasive  words  the  Bible  as 
the  water  of  life  and  beheld  the  miracle  of  the  Spirit, 
the  raising  of  dead  souls  to  life  by  that  word,  could  no 
more  be  counted  then  than  they  can  be  now.  Their 
field  of  labor  was  the  same  in  which  Jesus  wrought,  the 
poor  had  the  Gospel  preached  unto  them  ;  and  among 
them  chiefly  the  blind  received  their  sight,  the  lame 
walked,  the  lepers  were  cleansed,  the  deaf  heard.  But 
God,  who  never  hurries,  never  delays,  w'as  preparing  his 
overwhelming  answer  to  learned  doubt.  In  the  Bull  Inn 
at  Gloucester,  in  the  west  of  England,  and  in  the  secluded 
rectory  of  Epworth,  amid  the  fens  of  Lincolnshire,  God 
prepared  the  three  flaming  heralds  of  his  love  and  grace, 
Whitefield  and  the  two  Wesleys,  who  were  to  do  more 
to  answer  the  deists  and  rationalists  than  all  the  libraries 
written  against  them.  To  all  men,  rich  and  poor,  but 
chiefly  to  the  common  people,  who  heard  them  gladly, 
they  commended  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God  with 
power;  they  preached  the  very  heart  of  the  Bible's  mes- 
sage, the  infinite  love  of  God  over  against  the  dark  back- 
ground of  man's  sin  ;  they  had  found  perfect  peace  of 
soul  in  trusting  the  finished  work  of  Christ,  they  believed 
in  what  others  termed  the  blood  theologj',  the  blood  of 
Christ  as  their  redemption,  and  they  could  tell  others 
how  they  could  find  rest  to  their  souls,  b}'  a  whole- 
hearted trust  in  the  word  of  God,  which  "  cannot  be 
broken."  Bibles,  long  hidden  and  dusty,  were  brought 
out  and  searched,  and  to  every  heart  crushed  and  bleed- 
ing, self-condemned  and  hopeless,  the  discredited  Bible 
proved  itself  to  be  the  power  of  the  living  God,  until  in 
England  and  America  a  host  of  believers,  "  who  knew 
no  more  but  knew  their  Bibles  true,"  rose  up  through 
the  mighty  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  accomplish  the 
wonderful  works  which  have  continued  to  this  daw    The 


22  ANll-lll(;ilKR   CRITICISM. 

absolutely  conclusive  answer  to  the  deist's  learned  dis- 
approval of  the  Bible  is  a  man,  who  was  dead  through 
his  sins,  made  alive  in  Christ  and  sitting  with  him  in 
heavenly  places;  who  was  blind,  but  now  he  sees;  who 
was  lame,  but  now  he  walks  with  Christ  ;  who  was  a  leper, 
in  his  foul  sins,  but  now  cleansed  ;  who  was  deaf,  but 
now  he  hears.  That  man  is  a  living  fact,  a  visible  argu- 
ment, a  miracle  which  no  human  testimony  can  disprove. 
He  may  be  reviled  and  spat  upon  as  his  Master  was; 
but  he  is  made  and  maintained  as  the  unbeliever  says  he 
cannot  be. 

While  Voltaire,  in  his  deistical  doctrine  and  licentious 
life,  was  the  fit  representative  of  court  and  literary  circles 
in  France,  and  led  the  dance  of  death  till  it  whirled  into 
the  blood  bath  of  the  Revolution,  there  were  in  the  south 
of  France  a  few  hundred  of  the  scattered,  crushed,  ab- 
jectly poor  Huguenots,  The  edicts  administered  by  dra- 
goons, laws  of  incredible  severity,  had  driven  from 
France  every  Huguenot  of  wealth,  name,  or  position  ; 
only  the  poor  were  left — charcoal-burners,  sheep-herders 
on  the  lofty  mountains,  farmers  on  the  bare  mountain 
sides,  weavers,  and  servants.  They  read  the  Bible  de- 
spised in  Paris,  they  in  the  depth  of  night  lapped  the 
water  of  life  and  became  the  small  but  invincible  army 
of  God.  Soon  there  were  assemblies  of  one  thousand, 
four  thousand,  ten  thousand,  twenty  thousand  people, 
gathered  at  night  far  away  from  human  habitation,  to 
listen  to  preachers  on  whose  head  a  great  price  was  set, 
and  who,  if  caught,  were  as  sure  of  torture  and  the  gal- 
lows on  earth  as  they  were  of  heaven  afterward.  Hun- 
dreds of  these  poor  were  caught  pra)'ing  in  French  or 
listening  to  French  preaching,  and  willingly  paid  the 
penalty  of  a  lifetime  in  the  torturing  galleys  or  found  a 
more  blessed  end  on  the  gibbet.  All  the  efforts  of  the 
government    were  in  vain  to  prevent  the  importation  of 


LEARNED   DOUBT  AND   THE   LIVING   WORD.  25 

Bibles  from  Switzerland  to  feed  the  increasing  numbers 
of  those  who  knew  it  to  be  the  bread  from  heaven. 
Through  unresting  persecution  of  eighty  years,  sur- 
rounded by  a  cordon  of  fire,  outside  of  all  law,  past  the 
gibbets  where  their  beloved  hung,  the  galleys  where  the 
backs  of  their  brothers  were  lashed  till  they  rotted,  the 
towers  and  prisons  where  grandmothers  and  mothers 
and  babes  were  shut  up  for  life,  whose  cry  of  agony  re- 
echoed among  the  hills,  this  band  of  the  poor,  with  the 
Bible  and  for  the  Bible,  worked  and  taught,  testifying  of 
the  grace  that  is  come  unto  us,  until  the  few  hundred 
had  become  more  than  a  million,  and  the  Revolution 
broke  the  infamous  laws  that  oppressed  them.  Never 
since  the  apostolic  age  has  the  power  of  the  Bible  as  the 
living  word  of  God  been  more  gloriously  manifested 
than  in  the  Church  of  the  Desert,  the  Huguenot  revival 
in  the  last  century. 

In  the  midst  of  the  well-nigh  universal  defection  of 
German  learning  from  the  Bible  arose  another  Church  of 
the  poor,  the  Moravians,  whose  only  store  was  the  Bible, 
relatively  the  most  thoroughly  missionary  people  of  all 
the  denominations.  While  the  German  universities  were 
proving  to  their  satisfaction  that  the  Bible  contained 
more  errors  than  truths  the  Moravians  were  gathering 
converts  to  the  Bible  in  Germany,  England,  Greenland, 
the  West  Indies,  Asia,  and  Africa.  Life  from  the  dead 
was  the  ever-recurring  miracle  where  they  carried  the 
Bible  to  stricken  hearts. 

From  the  last  century  to  the  end  of  this  deism,  Socin- 
ianism,  agnosticism,  unbelief  in  the  Bible,  joined  with 
great  learning,  has  marked  too  many  in  the  greatest  cen- 
ters of  education  in  Europe,  England,  and  America,  and 
to-day  we  arc  told  by  those  who  ought  to  know  better 
that  the  victorious  criticism  of  the  Bible  is  learned  doubt 
of  the  Bible.     Victorious  where?  victorious  over  whom? 


24  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Victorious  only  where  human  learning,  wonderful  as  it 
may  be,  is  held  to  be  a  greater  power  than  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  the  omniscient  and  omnipotent  God.  Victori- 
ous only  over  those  who  have  either  never  "  tasted  of 
the  heavenly  gift  "  nor  "  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  "  nor  "  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,"  or,  having 
tasted,  "  fell  away." 

But  for  these  two  hundred  years  of  the  vaunted  vic- 
tory of  learning  over  the  Bible  what  streams  of  life  have 
flowed  out  to  the  world  through  this  Bible  ;  what  vic- 
tories has  it  won  of  hundreds  of  thousands,  of  millions 
of  souls,  who  have  been  the  light  and  life  of  the  world  ! 
Out  of  it  has  come  the  missionary  societies  of  all  Churches, 
which  have  carried  the  Bible  and  its  love  and  grace  to 
all  the  quarters  of  the  globe  ;  the  Bible  societies,  which 
every  year  publish  more  Bibles  than  there  are  minutes 
in  the  year,  and  yet  the  demand  is  not  fully  met;  the 
Sunday  school  societies,  which  publish  more  literature  on 
the  Bible  than  was  dreamed  of  a  few  years  ago ;  the 
publication  societies  of  all  our  Churches;  the  tract  socie- 
ties; the  Christian  Endeavor  societies,  with  a  giant's 
strength  in  its  youth  ;  the  swelling  tide  of  the  benevo- 
lence in  all  its  forms  of  our  earnest  working  Churches.  To- 
day there  are  more  men  and  women  in  the  world  telling 
the  story  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord  than 
ever  before.  To-day  more  converts  are  gathered  into 
our  Churches  than  ever  before.  America,  with  its  mil- 
lions of  Christians,  has  been  won  by  the  Bible  since  the 
deists  and  rationalists  proved  that  the  Bible  was  not 
trustworthy  ;  and  within  the  memory  of  living  men  three 
hundred  islands  of  the  Pacific,  most  of  them  homes  of 
cannibals,  have  become  the  homes  of  righteousness, 
peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  For  seeing  that  in 
the  wisdom  of  God  the  world  through  its  wisdom  knew 
not  God,  it  was  God's  good  pleasure  through  the  foolish- 


LEARNED    DOUBT   AND    THE   LIVING    WORD.  25 

ness  of  the  preaching  to  save  them  that  bcHeve."  "  The 
fooHshness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men  ;  and  the  weakness 
of  God  is  stronger  than  men."  "  God  chose  the  foohsh 
things  of  the  world,  that  he  might  put  to  shame  them 
that  are  wise ;  and  God  chose  the  weak  things  of  the 
world,  that  he  might  put  to  shame  the  things  that  are 
strong  ;  and  the  base  things  of  the  world,  and  the  things 
that  are  despised,  did  God  choose,  yea  and  the  things 
that  are  not,  that  he  might  bring  to  naught  the  things 
that  are  :  that  no  flesh  should  glory  before  God.  But 
of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  made  unto  us 
wisdom  from  God,  and  righteousness  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  and  redemption  :  that,  according  as  it  is  written.  He 
that  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord." 

"  Fear  not,  little   flock  ;  for  it  is  your  Father's  good 
pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom." 


26  ANTI-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


BY  W.  HENRY  GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  in  Princeton   Tlieological  Seminary. 

The  various  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  resolve  themselves 
into  two  classes,  respectively  affecting  its  form  or  its  con- 
tents. In  regard  to  the  former  it  is  affirmed  that  such 
is  the  constitution  of  the  Pentateuch  as  to  evince  that 
it  is  not  the  continuous  composition  of  any  one  writer, 
but  that  it  is  compacted  of  parts  of  diverse  origin,  the 
products  of  different  writers,  themselves  long  posterior 
to  the  Mosaic  age  ;  and  consequently  the  Pentateuch, 
though  it  may  contain  some  Mosaic  elements,  cannot 
in  its  present  form  have  proceeded  from  Moses,  but 
must  belong  to  a  much  later  period.  In  regard  to  the 
latter  it  is  asserted  that  the  Pentateuch  contains  so 
many  anachronisms,  contradictions,  and  inaccuracies 
that  it  cannot  possibly  have  been  written  by  Moses. 
The  first  class  of  objections  is  directed  against  the  unity 
of  the  Pentateuch,  the  second  against  its  authenticity. 

In  order  to  render  intelligible  the  nature  of  the  par- 
tition hypotheses,  with  which  we  shall  have  to  deal,  the 
nomenclature  which  they  employ,  and  their  application 
to  the  Pentateuch,  it  will  be  necessary  first  to  state  pre- 
cisely what  is  meant  by  the  unity  for  which  we  contend 
and  then  say  a  few  words  about  the  origin  and  history 
of  those  hypotheses  by  which  it  has  been  impugned,  and 
the  several  forms  which  they  have  successively  assumed. 

By  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  is  meant  that  it  is,  in 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  2/ 

its  present  form,  one  continuous  worlc,  tlie  product  of  a 
single  writer.  This  is  not  opposed  to  the  idea  of  his 
having  before  him  written  sources  in  any  number  or 
variety  from  which  he  may  have  drawn  his  materials, 
provided  the  composition  was  his  own.  It  is  of  no  con- 
sequence, so  far  as  our  present  inquiry  is  concerned, 
whether  the  facts  related  were  learned  from  preexisting 
writings,  or  from  credible  tradition,  or  from  his  own 
personal  knowledge,  or  from  immediate  divine  reve- 
lation. From  whatever  source  the  materials  may  have 
been  gathered,  if  all  has  been  cast  into  the  mold  of  the 
writer's  own  thoughts,  presented  from  his  point  of  view, 
and  arranged  upon  a  plan  and  method  of  his  own,  the 
work  possesses  the  unity  which  we  maintain.  Thus 
Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States  rests  upon  a 
multitude  of  authorities  which  its  author  consulted  in 
the  course  of  its  preparation  ;  the  facts  which  it  records 
were  drawn  from  a  great  variety  of  preexisting  written 
sources  ;  and  yet  as  we  possess  it  it  is  the  product  of  one 
writer,  who  first  made  himself  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  his  subject  and  then  elaborated  it  in  his  own  lan- 
guage and  according  to  his  own  preconceived  plan.  It 
would  have  been  very  different  if  his  care  had  simply 
been  to  weave  together  his  authority  in  the  form  of  a  tjz^ 
continuous  narrative,  retaining  in   all  cases  their  exact  ' 

language,  but  incorporating  one  into  another  or  supple- 
menting one  by  another  so  as  to  string  the  several  sources 
together  in  the  form  of  a  continuous  narrative.  In  this 
case  it  would  not  have  been  Bancroft's  History.  He 
would  have  been  merely  the  compiler  of  a  work  consist- 
ing of  a  series  of  extracts  from  various  authors.  Such  a 
narrative  has  been  made  by  harmonists  of  the  gospel 
history.  They  have  framed  an  account  of  all  the  re- 
corded facts  by  piecing  together  extracts  from  the  several 
gospels   arranged  in  what  is  conceived  to  be  their  true 


28  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

chronological  order.  And  the  result  is  not  a  new  gospel 
history  based  upon  the  several  gospels,  nor  is  it  the 
original  gospel  either  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  or  John  ; 
but  it  is  a  compound  of  the  whole  of  them,  and  it  can 
be  taken  apart  paragraph  by  paragraph,  or  sentence  by 
sentence,  and  each  portion  assigned  to  the  particular 
gospel  from  which  it  was  drawn. 

Now  the  question  respecting  the  unity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  whether  it  is  a  continuous  production  from  a 
single  pen,  whatever  may  have  been  the  sources  from 
which  the  materials  were  taken,  or  whether  it  is  a  com- 
posite production,  made  up  from  various  writings  woven 
together,  the  several  portions  of  which  are  still  capable 
of  being  distinguished,  separated,  and  assigned  to  their 
respective  originals. 

The  not  improbable  conjecture  was  expressed  at  an 
early  period  that  there  were  ante-Mosaic  records  to 
which  Moses  had  access,  and  of  which  he  made  use  in 
preparing  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  history  of  such  a 
remote  antiquity  would  seem  to  be  better  accredited  if  it 
had  a  written  basis  to  rest  upon  than  if  it  had  been 
drawn  solely  from  oral  tradition.  Thus  the  eminent  or- 
thodox theologian  and  commentator,  Vitringa,  expressed 
the  opinion  in  1707,  in  the  interest  of  the  credibility  of 
Genesis,  that  Moses  collected,  digested,  embellished,  and 
supplemented  the  records  left  by  the  fathers  and  pre- 
served among  the  Israelites.  The  peculiarity  of  the 
critical  hypothesis,  with  which  we  are  now  concerned, 
however,  is  the  contention  that  Genesis  was  not  merely 
based  upon  preexisting  writings,  but  that  it  was  framed 
out  of  those  writings  which  were  incorporated  in  it  and 
simply  pieced  together  so  that  each  section  and  para- 
graph and  sentence  preserved  still  its  original  style  and 
texture,  indicative  of  the  source  from  which  it  came  ; 
and  that  by  means  of  these  criteria  the  Book  of  Genesis 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  29 

can  be  taken  apart  and  its  original  sources  reproduced. 
The  first  suggestion  of  this  possibihty  and  the  first  at- 
tempt actually  to  realize  it  by  decomposing  the  book 
into  the  prior  documents  which  had  been  embedded  in 
it,  was  made  in  1753  by  Astruc,  a  French  physician  of 
considerable  learning  but  of  profligate  life,  in  a  treatise 
entitled  Conjectures  Concerning  the  Original  Memo- 
randa zvhich,  it  appears,  Moses  nsed  to  Compose  the 
Book  of  Genesis.  This  hypothesis  was  adopted  and 
elaborated  with  great  learning  and  ingenuity  by  Eich- 
horn,  the  distinguished  professor  of  oriental  literature 
at  Gottingen,  to  whose  skillful  advocacy  it  owed  much 
of  its  sudden  popularity, 

I.  The  primary  basis  of  this  extraordinary  hypothesis 
was  found  in  the  remarkable  manner  in  which  the  divine 
names  Elohim  (the  Hebrew  term  for  God)  and  Jehovah 
are  used,  particularly  in  the  earlier  portions  of  Genesis, 
whole  paragraphs  and  even  long  sections  making  almost 
exclusive  use  of  one  of  these  names,  while  the  alternate 
sections  make  a  similarly  exclusive  use  of  the  other.  Thus, 
in  Gen.  i,  i-ii,  3,  Elohim  occurs  in  almost  every  verse, 
but  no  other  name  of  God  than  this.  But  in  ii,4-iii,  24, 
God  is  with  few  exceptions  called  Jehovah  Elohim,  and 
in  chapter  iv  Jehovah.  Then  in  chapter  v  we  find  Elo- 
him again  ;  in  vi,  1-8,  Jehovah,  and  in  the  rest  of  chap- 
ter vi  Elohim,  and  so  on.  This  singular  alternation  was 
remarked  upon  by  some  of  the  early  Christian  fathers, 
who  offered  an  explanation  founded  upon  the  Greek  and 
Latin  equivalents  of  these  names,  but  which  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  the  Hebrew  terms  themselves.  Astruc's 
assumption  was  that  it  was  due  to  the  peculiar  style  of 
different  writers,  one  of  whom  was  in  the  habit  of  using 
Elohim,  and  another  in  the  habit  of  using  Jehovah  when 
speaking  of  God.  All  those  paragraphs  and  sections, 
which  exclusively  or  predominantly  employ  the  name 
3 


30  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

Elohim,  were  accordingly  attributed  to  a  writer  denomi- 
nated from  this  circumstance  the  Elohist  ;  and  when 
these  paragraphs  were  singled  out  and  put  together  they 
constituted  what  was  called  the  Elohist  document.  The 
other  writer  was  known  as  the  Jehovist,  and  the  sections 
attributed  to  him  made  up  the  Jehovist  document.  It 
was  accordingly  held  that  Genesis  consisted  of  sections 
taken  alternately  from  two  distinct  documents  by  au- 
thors of  known  proclivities,  so  far,  at  least,  as  their  pre- 
ference for  or  exclusive  use  of  one  or  other  of  the  divine 
names  is  concerned,  and  which  existed  and  circulated 
in  their  separate  state  until  they  were  combined  as  they 
are  at  present.  This  hypothesis  is  hence  known  as  the 
documentary  hypothesis,  since  it  assumes  as  the  sources 
of  Genesis  distinct  and  continuous  documents,  which  are 
still  traceable  in  the  book  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 
And  the  first  argument  adduced  in  its  support,  as  already 
stated,  is  the  interchange  of  divine  names,  each  of  which 
is  erected  into  the  criterion  of  a  separate  document. 

2.  A  second  argument  was  drawn  from  the  alleged 
fact  that  when  the  Elohim  sections  are  sundered  out 
and  put  together  they  form  a  regularly  constructed  and 
continuous  narrative  without  any  apparent  breaks  or 
chasms,  whence  it  is  inferred  that  they  originally  con- 
stituted one  document  distinct  from  the  intercalated  Je- 
hovah sections.  The  same  thing  was  affirmed,  though 
with  more  hesitation  and  less  appearance  of  plausibility 
of  the  Jehovah  sections  likewise  ;  when  these  are  singled 
out  and  severed  from  the  passages  containing  the  name 
Elohim  they  form  a  tolerably  well  connected  document 
likewise. 

3.  A  third  argument  was  drawn  from  parallel  pas- 
sagfes  in  the  two  documents.  The  same  event,  it  is 
alleged,  is  in  repeated  instances  found  twice  narrated  in 
successive  sections  of  Genesis,  once  in  an  Elohist  section, 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  3 1 

and  again  with  some  modifications  or  variations  in  a 
Jehovah  section.  This  is  regarded  as  prdbf  positive  that 
Genesis  is  not  one  continuous  narrative,  but  that  it  is 
made  up  from  two  different  histories.  The  compiler,  in- 
stead of  framing  a  new  narrative,  which  should  compre- 
hend all  the  particulars  stated  in  both  accounts,  or  blend- 
ing the  two  accounts  by  incorporating  sentences  from 
one  in  the  body  of  the  other,  has  preserved  both  entire, 
each  in  its  integrity  and  in  its  own  proper  form,  by  first 
giving  the  account  of  the  matter  as  it  was  to  be  found  in 
one  document,  and  subsequently  inserting  the  account 
found  in  the  other.  Thus  Gen.  i,  i-ii,  3,  contains  the  ac- 
count of  the  creation  as  given  by  the  Elohist;  but  although 
thisstates  how  the  world  was  made,  and  plants  and  animals 
and  men  were  formed  upon  it,  the  Jehovist  section,  ii,  4, 
etc.,  introduces  a  fresh  account  of  the  making  of  the 
man  and  the  woman,  the  production  of  trees  from  the 
ground,  and  the  formation  of  the  inferior  animals.  This 
repetition  betrays,  it  is  said,  that  we  here  have  before  us 
not  one  account  of  the  creation  by  a  single  writer,  but 
two  separate  accounts  by  different  writers.  So  in  the 
narrative  of  the  flood  :  there  is  first  an  account  by  the 
Jehovists,  vi,  1-8,  of  the  wickedness  of  man  and  of  Je- 
hovah's purpose  to  destroy  the  earth;  then  follows  vi, 
9-22,  the  Elohist's  statement  of  the  wickedness  of  man 
and  God's  purpose  to  destroy  the  earth,  together 
with  God's  command  to  Noah  to  build  the  ark  and  go 
into  it  with  his  family  and  take  some  of  all  living  animals 
into  it;  in  vii,  1-5,  the  Jehovist  tells  that  Jehovah  com- 
manded Noah  to  go  with  his  family  into  the  ark,  and  to 
take  every  variety  of  animals  with  him. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  is  drawn  from  the  diversity  of 
style,  diction,  ideas,  and  aim  which  characterize  these 
two  documents.  It  is  alleged  that  when  these  compo- 
nent parts  of  Genesis  are  separated  and  examined  apart 


9. 


Mvci 


32  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

each  will  be  found  to  be  characterized  by  all  the  marks 
which  indicate  cliversity  of  origin  and  authorship.  It  is 
confidently  affirmed  that  wherever  the  Elohim  sections 
occur  throughout  Genesis  they  have  certain  peculiarities 
of  diction  and  style  which  clearly  distinguish  them  from 
the  Jehovah  sections;  and  these  again  have  their  own 
distinctive  characteristics.  The  preference  for  one  divine 
name  above  another,  which  has  already  been  spoken  of 
as  a  criterion,  does  not  stand  alone.  There  are,  besides, 
numerous  v\'ords  and  phrases  that  are  currently  used  by 
the  Elohist  which  the  Jehovist  never  employs,  and  vice 
versa.  Thus,  the  Elohist,  in  chapter  i,  uses  the  phrase 
"  beast  of  the  earth,"  and  speaks  of  the  earth  bringing 
forth  plants,  while  the  Jehovist,  in  chapter  ii,  says  "  beast 
of  the  field  "  and  "  plant  of  the  field."  The  Elohist,  in 
chapter  i,  repeatedly  uses  the  word  "create;"  he  speaks 
of  God  creating  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  creating  the 
whales  and  creating  man.  The  Elohist,  chapter  i,  speaks 
of.man  as  male  and  female  ;  the  Jehovist,  chapter  ii,  says 
instead,  the  man  and  his  wife.  The  style  of  the  two 
writers  is  equally  marked  :  that  of  the  Elohist  is  formal, 
verbose,  and  repetitious  ;  that  of  the  Jehovist  is  easy  and 
flowing.  In  chapter  i  the  same  stereotyped  phrases  recur 
again  and  again,  and  particulars  are  enumerated  instead 
of  including  all  under  a  general  term.  Thus,  verse  25, 
"God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and 
cattle  after  their  kind,  and  every  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth  after  his  kind  ;  "  and  verse  27,  "  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
created  he  him  ;  male  and  female  created  he  them." 
The  Elohist  gives  God's  command  to  Noah  in  detail 
(vi,  18),  "Thou  shalt  come  into  the  ark,  thou,  and  thy 
sons,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  sons'  wives  with  thee  ;  "  the 
Jehovist  simply  says  (vii,  i),  "  Come  thou  and  all  thy 
house  into  the  ark."   i 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  33 

Along  with  these  pecuHarities  of  diction  and  style,  and 
corroborating  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them,  is  the 
diversity  in  the  ideas  and  scope  of  the  two  writers. 
Thus  the  Jehovist  makes  frequent  mention  of  altars  and 
sacrifices  in  the  pre-Mosaic  period  ;  the  Elohist  is  silent 
respecting  them  until  their  establishment  at  Sinai.  It  is 
the  Jehovist  who  records  the  primeval  sacrifice  of  Cain 
and  Abel,  of  which  the  Elohist  says  nothing.  The  Elo- 
hist speaks  in  chapter  v  of  Enoch  walking  with  God,  and 
(vi,  9)  of  Noah  walking  with  God  ;  but,  though  he  gives 
(chap,  ix)  a  detailed  account  of  God's  blessing  Noah  and 
his  covenant  with  him  after  he  came  out  of  the  ark,  he 
says  nothing  of  Noah's  sacrifice,  which  the  Jehovist  re- 
cords (viii,  20,  etc.).  The  divine  direction  to  Noah  to 
take  animals  into  the  ark  is  given  by  the  Elohist  only 
in  general  terms.  God  bade  him  to  take  two  of  every 
sort  (vi,  19,  etc.).  But  the  Jehovist  informs  us  more 
minutely  of  the  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  ani- 
mals which  then  existed,  and  that  Jehovah  bade  Noah 
take  two  of  each  species  of  the  latter,  but  seven  of  the 
former. 

These  arguments,  derived  from  the  alternate  use  of  the 
divine  names,  from  the  alleged  continuity  of  each  docu- 
ment taken  separately,  from  parallel  passages,  and  from 
the  characteristic  differences  of  the  two  writers,  appear     -^X-/ 
to  lend  so  much  plausibility  to  the  documentary  hypoth-  / 

esis  that  it  speedily  rose  to  great  celebrity,  and  was  very 
widely  adopted  ;  and  many  able  and  distinguished  critics 
became  its  advocates.  As  at  first  propounded  it  did  not 
conflict  with  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Its  earliest  defenders,  so  far  from  impugning  the  author- 
ship of  Moses,  were  strenuous  in  maintaining  it.  So 
long  as  the  hypothesis  was  confined  to  Genesis,  to  which 
it  was  at  first  applied,  there  was  no  difficulty  in  assum- 
ing that  Moses  may  have  incorporated  in  his  history  of 


34  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

that  early  period  these  preexisting  documents  in  any 
way  consistent  with  his  truth  and  inspiration. 

It  was  not  long,  however,  before  it  was  discovered 
that  the  hypothesis  was  capable  of  being  applied,  like- 
wise, to  the  remaining  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  This 
extension  of  the  hypothesis  brought  it  for  the  first  time 
in.  collision  with  the  traditional  belief  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  ;  and  this,  with  its  various  modifications,  has 
since  been  one  of  the  favorite  and  principal  weapons  of 
those  who  deny  that  it  was  written  by  Moses.  If  the 
entire  Pentateuch  is  a  compilation  from  preexisting  doc- 
uments, it  was  plausibly  inferred  that  it  must  be  post- 
Mosaic.  For  the  documents  themselves,  inasmuch  as 
they  contained  the  record  of  Moses's  own  times,  could 
not  have  been  older  than  the  Mosaic  age.  And  if  the 
Pentateuch  was  subsequent  to  them  and  framed  out  of 
them,  it  seemed  natural  to  refer  it  to  a  still  later  period, 
though  it  should  be  observed  that  this  by  no  means 
necessarily  follows.  Even  if  the  composite  character  of 
the  Pentateuch  could  be  established  on  purely  literary 
grounds,  we  might  still  suppose  that  the  memoranda 
from  which  it  was  prepared  were  drawn  up  under 
Moses's  direction  and  with  his  approval,  and  were  either 
put  together  in  their  present  form  by  himself,  or,  at 
least,  that  the  completed  work  passed  under  his  eye  and 
received  his  sanction.  So  that  it  would  still  be  possible 
to  vindicate  its  Mosaic  origin  and  authority,  unless,  in- 
deed, the  primary  documents  themselves  are  assigned  to 
a  later  time  than  that  of  Moses. 

This  the  critics,  who  have  held  this  hypothesis,  com- 
monly do  ;  and  hence  they  claim  that  it  affords  ocular 
demonstration  that  the  books  traditionally  ascribed  to 
Moses  are  not  his.  And  to  corroborate  this  conclusion 
they  appeal^4  to  Exod.  vi,  3,  where  God  says  to  Moses, 
"  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob, 


THE    UNITY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  35 

as  God  Almighty,  but  by  my  name  JEHOVAH  I  was 
not  known  to  them."  They  understao4  this  to  be  a  dis- 
tinct declaration  that  the  name  of  Jehovah  was  unknown 
to  the  patriarchs,  being  of  later  date  than  the  time  in 
which  they  lived,  and  that  it  first  came  into  use  in  the 
days  of  Moses.  It  hence  followed  as  a  logical  necessity 
that  the  Jehovist  document,  according  to  the  testimony 
of  this  passage,  was  certainly  not  prior  to  the  time  of 
Moses;  for  it  employs  a  name  which  had  no  existence 
previously.  And  it  was  plausibly  urged  that  this  docu- 
ment was  probably  post-Mosaic,  for  it  is  chargeable  with 
the  anachronism  of  putting  into  the  mouths  of  the  patri- 
archs the  name  of  Jehovah,  which  did  not  then  exist. 
This  was  thought  to  be  contradictory  to  the  Elohist 
statement  above  cited,  and  to  betray  a  writer  belonging 
to  a  period  when  the  name  of  Jehovah  had  become  so 
familiar  and  so  universal  that  its  recent  origin  was  for- 
gotten, and  he  unconsciously  transfers  to  patriarchal 
times  a  designation  current  in  his  own. 

This  anachronism  of  the  Jehovist  led  to  the  suspicion 
of  others ;  and  since,  as  has  already  been  stated,  it  is 
this  document  which  makes  mention  of  patriarchal  altars 
and  sacrifices,  which  are  never  referred  to  by  the  Elohist, 
it  was  suspected  that  here  again  he  had  improperly  trans- 
ferred to  the  patriarchal  age  the  usages  of  his  own  time, 
while  the  Elohist  gave  a  more  accurate  representation 
of  that  early  period  as  it  really  was.  This  was  esteemed, 
if  not  a  contradiction,  yet  a  contrariety  between  the  two 
accounts,  a  diversity  in  the  mode  of  conceiving  the 
period  whose  history  they  are  recording,  which  reflects 
the  different  personality  of  the  two  writers,  the  views 
which  they  entertained,  and  the  influences  under  which 
they  had  been  trained. 

These  diversities  between  the  Jehovist  and  the  Elohist 
took  on  more  and  more  the  character  of  contradictions 


36  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

as  the  credit  of  the  Jehovist  for  veracity  and  accuracy 
was  held  in  less  and  less  esteem.  Every  superficial  diffi- 
culty was  made  the  pretext  for  fresh  charges  of  anachro- 
nisms, inaccuracies,  and  contradictions.  The  text  was 
.  tortured  to  bring  forth  difficulties  where  none  appeared. 
An  especially  fruitful  source  was  found  in  alleged  paral- 
lel passages  in  the  two  documents.  These  were  greatly 
multiplied  by  pressing  into  the  service  narrations  of 
matters  quite  distinct,  but  which  bore  a  general  resem- 
blance to  each  other.  The  points  of  resemblance  were 
paraded  in  proof  that  the  matters  referred  to  were  iden- 
tical ;  and  then  every  diversity  in  the  two  accounts  was 
pointed  out  as  so  many  contradictions  between  them, 
which  betrayed  the  legendary  and  unreliable  character 
of  one  or  both  the  narratives.  Thus  because  some  of 
the  descendants  of  Cain,  whose  genealogy  is  recorded  by 
r>'  the  Jehovist  (Gen.  iv,  17-22),  bear  the  same  or  similar 
jVyL,  names  asifee  descendants  of  Seth  recorded  by  the  Elohist 
(chapter  v),  Enoch,  Irad,  Methusael,  and  Lamech  of  one 
table  corresponding  to  Jared,  Enoch,  Methuselah,  and 
Lamech  of  the  other,  it  was  concluded  that  these  are 
only  variants  of  the  same  identical  genealogy,  wdiich 
one  writer  has  attached  to  one  of  the  sons  of  Adam,  and 
the  other  to  another;  and  that  every  divergence  in  the 
two  lists  is  a  discrepancy  involving  an  error  on  one  side 
or  on  the  other,  if  not  in  both.  So  in  chapter  xii  the 
Jehovist  tells  how  Abraham,  apprehensive  that  the  mon- 
arch of  the  country  in  which  he  was  would  be  attracted 
by  his  wife's  beauty,  prevaricated  by  sa)-ing  that  she 
was  his  sister,  what  perils  thence  arose  to  both,  and  how 
they  were  finally  extricated.  In  chapter  xx  the  Elohist 
relates  a  similar  story  of  prevarication,  peril,  and  deliver- 
ance. The  same  event,  it  is  alleged,  must  be  the  basis 
of  both  accounts,  but  there  is  a  hopeless  contradiction 
between  them.     The  former  declares  that  the  occurrence 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  37 

took  place  in  Egypt,  and  that  Pharaoh  was  a  party  to 
the  transaction ;  the  latter  transfers  the  scene  to  the 
land  of  the  Philistines  and  the  court  of  Abimelech.  And 
to  complicate  the  matter  still  further,  the  Jehovist  gives 
yet  another  version  of  the  same  story  in  chapter  xxvi, 
according  to  which  it  was  not  Abraham,  but  Isaac,  who 
thus  declared  his  wife  to  be  his  sister,  running  an  im- 
minent hazard  by  so  doing,  but  making  a  fortunate 
escape.  According  to  the  Elohist  (xxi,  22-32),  Abraham 
had  a  difficulty  with  Abimelech  in  respect  to  a  well  of 
water,  which  was  amicably  settled  by  a  covenant,  in 
memory  of  which  he  gave  name  to  Beersheba.  The 
Jehovist  (xxvi,  17-33)  relates  a  similar  story  of  strife  con- 
cerning wells,  a  visit  by  Abimelech,  an  agreement  with 
him,  and  the  naming  of  Beersheba  in  consequence  ;  but 
he  says  that  it  was  not  Abraham,  but  Isaac,  who  was  con- 
cerned in  it. 

Meanwhile  a  more  extreme  disintegration  found  favor 
with  Vater  (1805),  Hartmann  (1831),  and  others,  who 
advocated  what  is  known  as  the  fragmentary  hypothesis. 
This  may  be  fitly  characterized  as  the  documentary 
hypothesis  run  mad.  It  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdiun  fur- 
nished by  the  more  consistent  and  thoroughgoing  appli- 
cation of  the  principles  and  methods  of  its  predecessor. 
Instead  of  two  continuous  documents  pieced  together 
paragraph  by  paragraph  to  constitute  the  Pentateuch  as 
we  now  have  it,  each  paragraph  or  section  is  now  traced 
to  a  separate  and  independent  source.  The  compiler  was 
not  limited  to  two  writings  covering  alike  the  entire 
period  that  he  proposed  to  treat,  but  had  before  him  all 
that  he  could  gather  of  every  sort  relating  to  his  subject, 
some  of  which  possibly  were  mere  scraps,  others  of  larger 
compass,  some  recording,  it  maybe,  but  a  single  incident, 
others  more  comprehensive,  and  he  adopted  one  passage 
from  one,  another  from   another,  and  so  on  throughout. 


38  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Sometimes  two  or  more  fragments  may  have  been  taken 
from  the  same  original  work,  but  this  cannot  be  posi- 
tively affirmed.  And  it  would  be  vain  to  attempt  to 
inquire  into  the  extent,  character,  and  aim  of  the  writ- 
ings from  which  they  were  severally  extracted.  All  that 
we  know  of  them  is  derived  from  such  portions  as  the 
compiler  has  seen  fit  to  preserve. 

The  arguments  adduced  in  support  of  the  fragmen- 
tary hypothesis  were  substantially  identical  with  those 
which  had  been  urged  in  favor  of  the  documentary 
hypothesis.  And  assuming  the  soundness  of  those 
arguments,  this  is  the  inevitable  consequence.  Admit 
the  legitimacy  of  this  disintegrating  process,  and  there 
is  no  limit  to  which  it  may  not  be  carried  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  operator  ;  and  it  might  be  added,  there  is  no  work 
to  which  it  might  not  be  applied.  Any  book  in  the  Bible 
or  out  of  the  Bible  could  be  sliced  and  splintered  in  the 
same  way  and  by  the  same  method  of  argument.  Let  a 
similarly  minute  and  searching  examination  be  instituted 
into  the  contents  of  any  modern  book;  let  any  one 
page  be  compared  with  any  other,  and  every  word  and 
form  of  expression  and  grammatical  construction  and 
rhetorical  figure  in  one  that  does  not  occur  in  the  other 
be  noted  as  difference  of  diction  and  style  ;  let  every 
thought  in  one  that  has  its  counterpart  in  the  other  be 
paraded  as  parallel  sections  evidencing  diversity  of  ori- 
gin and  authorship,  and  every  thought  which  has  not  its 
counterpart  in  the  other  as  establishing  a  diversity  in 
the  ideas  of  the  authors  of  the  two  pages  respectivel}' ; 
let  every  conclusion  arrived  at  on  one  page  that  does  not 
appear  on  the  other  argue  different  tendencies  in  the  two 
writers,  different  aims  with  which  and  different  influences 
under  which  they  severally  wrote,  and  nothing  would  be 
easier,  if  this  method  of  proof  be  allowed,  than  to  demon- 
strate that  each  successive  page  came  from  a  different  pen. 


THE    UNITY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  39 

The  very  same  process  by  which  the  Pentateuch  is 
decomposed  into  documents  can  with  like  faciHty  divide 
these  documents  and  subdivide  them  and  subdivide  them 
again.  Indeed,  the  advocates  of  the  documentary  hy- 
pothesis may  here  be  summoned  as  witnesses  against 
themselves.  They  currently  admit  different  Elohists 
and  Jehovists,  and  successive  variant  editions  of  each 
document,  and  a  whole  school  of  priestly  and  Deutero- 
nomic  diaskeuasts  and  redactors,  thus  rivaling  in  their 
refinements  the  multitudinous  array  of  the  fragmentary 
critics.  And,  in  fact,  the  extent  to  which  either  may  go 
in  this  direction  is  determined  by  purely  subjective 
considerations.  The  only  limitation  is  that  imposed  by 
the  taste  or  fancy  of  the  critic.  If  the  repetitions  or 
parallel  sections  alleged  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch 
require  thSij^  assumption  of  distinct  documents,  like  repe-  £f  / 
titions  occurring  in  each  individual  document  prove  it  / 
to  be  composite.  The  very  same  sort  of  contrarieties 
or  contradictions  which  are  made  a  pretext  for  sunder- 
ing the  Pentateuch  can  furnish  an  equally  plausible  rea- 
son for  sundering  each  of  the  documents.  And  if  certain 
criteria  are  regarded  as  characteristic  of  a  given  docu- 
ment and  their  absence  from  sections  attributed  to  the 
other  is  held  to  prove  that  they  are  by  a  different  hand 
•  from  the  former,  why  does  not  the  same  rule  apply  to 
the  numerous  sections  of  the  first  named  document,  from 
which  its  own  so-called  characteristic  words  and  phrases 
are  likewise  absent  ? 

The  titles  and  subscriptions  attached  to  genealogies 
and  legal  sections  supplied  an  additional  argument,  of 
which  the  advocates  of  the  fragmentary  hypothesis 
sought  to  avail  themselves.  Such  titles  as  the  following 
are  prefixed  to  indicate  the  subject  of  the  section  that 
follows:  "These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and 
of  the  earth  "  (Gen.  ii,  4).      "  This  is  the  book  of  the 


40  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

^generations  of  Adam  "  (v,  i).  "  These  are  tlie  names  of 
the  sons  of  Levi  according  to  their  generations  "  (Exod.  vi, 
i6).  "  This  is  the  law  of  the  trespass  offering  "  (Lev. 
vii,  i).  "  This  is  the  l.iw  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offer- 
ings "  (verse  1 1).  "  These  are  the  journeys  of  the  children 
of  Israel  "  (Num.  xxxiii,  i).  Or  subscriptions  are  added 
at  the  close  suggestive  of  the  contents  of  the  section  that 
precedes,  such  as:  "  These  are  the  families  of  the  sons  of 
Noah,  after  their  generations,  in  their  nations"  (Gen. 
X,  32).  "  These  be  the  sons  of  Leah  "  (xlvi,  15).  "These 
are  the  sons  of  Zilpah  "  (verse  18).  "  These  are  the  sons 
of  Rachel  "  (verse  22).  "  This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt 
offering,  of  the  meat  ofTering,  and  of  the  sin  offering," 
etc.  (Lev.  vii,  37,  38).  "  This  is  the  law  of  the  plague 
of  leprosy,"  etc.  (xiii,  59).  These  indicate  divisions  in 
the  subject-matter,  and  mark  the  beginning  or  end  of 
paragraphs  or  sections,  and  contribute  to  clearness  by 
brief  statements  of  their  general  purport ;  but  they  do 
not  prove  that  these  sections  ever  had  a  separate  and  in- 
dependent existence  apart  from  the  book  in  which  they 
are  now  found,  or  that  different  sections  proceeded  from 
different  authors,  any  more  than  like  conclusion  could  be 
drawn  from  the  books  and  chapters  into  which  modern 
works  are  divided.  The  extravagance  and  absurdity  of 
the  fragmentary  In-pothesis  could  not  long  escape  detec- 
tion.    For 

I.  It  involves  the  assumption  of  a  numerous  body  of 
writings  regarding  the  Mosaic  and  ante-Mosaic  periods, 
of  which  there  is  no  other  evidence,  and  which  is  all  out 
of  proportion  to  the  probabilities  of  the  case.  Every 
several  paragraph  or  section  is  supposed  to  represent  a 
distinct  work,  implying  a  literary  activity  and  a  fertility 
of  authorship,  which  is  not  only  assumed  on  slender  and 
inadequate  grounds,  but  of  which  not  another  fragment 
survives,  to  which  no  allusion  is  made,  whether  in  the 


THE    UNITY    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  4I 

Pentateuch  itself  or  elsewhere,  and  not  a^  hint  or  a  trace  is 
anywhere  preserved  of  its  ever  having  existed. 

2.  A  congeries  of  fragments  borrowed  from  diverse 
quarters  could  only  form  a  body  of  disconnected  anec- 
dotes or  a  heterogeneous  miscellany.  It  could  not  pos- 
sibly result  in  the  production  of  such  a  work  as  the 
Pentateuch,  which  is  a  coherent  whole,  possessing  or- 
derly arrangement  in  accordance  with  a  well-devised  plan, 
wiiich  is  consistently  carried  out,  with  a  continuous  and 
connected  narrative,  with  no  abrupt  transitions  and  no 
such  contrasts  or  discords  as  would  inevitably  arise  from 
piecing  together  what  was  independently  conceived  and 
written  by  different  persons  at  different  times,  and  with 
no  regard  to  mutual  adjustment.  As  in  oriental  writ- 
ings generally,  the  successive  portions  are  more  loosely 
bound  together  in  outward  form  than  is  customary  in 
modern  occidental  style  ;  but  the  matter  of  the  record 
is  throughout  continuous,  and  one  constant  aim  is  stead- 
fastly pursued.  The  breaks  and  interruptions  which  are 
alleged  to  exist  in  the  narrative,  such  as  the  failure  to 
record  in  full  the  abode  in  Egypt,  the  private  life  of 
Moses,  or  the  forty  years  wandering  in  the  wilderness, 
are  no  indications  of  a  lack  of  unity,  but  the  reverse;  for 
they  show  with  what  tenacity  the  writer  adhered  to  his 
proper  theme  and  excluded  everything  which  did  not 
belong  to  it. 

3.  Still  further,  the  Pentateuch  is  not  only  possessed 
of  a  demonstrable  unity  of  structure,  which  renders  its 
fragmentary  origin  inconceivable,  but  there  are  through- 
out manifest  allusions  from  one  part  to  another,  one  sec- 
tion either  referring  in  express  terms  to  what  is  contained 
in  others  or  implying  their  existence,  being  based  upon 
those  that  precede  and  unintelligible  without  them,  and 
presupposing  those  that  follow.  The  minute  examina- 
tions to  which  this  very  hypothesis  has  driven  the  friends 


{ 


42  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  truth  have  shown  that  such  exphcit  or  tacit  allusions 
are  traceable  everywhere  ;  and  wherever  they  occur  they 
make  it  clear  that  the  writer  must  have  been  cognizant 
of  the  paragraphs  alluded  to,  and  have  felt  at  liberty  to 
assume  that  his  readers  were  acquainted  with  them  like- 
wise. Of  course  this  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  no- 
tion that  each  of  these  paragraphs  came  from  a  different 
source  and  was  written  independently  of  the  rest. 

Repelled  by  the  inconsistencies  and  incongruities  of 
the  fragmentary  hypothesis,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Tuch. 
Knobel,  and  others  advocated  what  is  known  as  the  sup- 
plementary hypothesis.  This  is  a  modification  of  the 
documentary,  not  on  the  side  of  a  still  further  and  indefi- 
nite division,  but  on  the  opposite  side  of  a  closer  union. 
It  was  consequently  a  reaction  in  the  right  direction  ; 
a  confession  that  what  had  been  sundered  without  limit, 
as  though  its  several  parts  were  void  of  all  coherence, 
really  do  belong  together.  It  is  an  admission,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  of  the  cogency  of  the  arguments  by  which  the  vari- 
ous parts  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  shown  to  be  linked 
together. 

The  supplementary  hypothesis  retained  the  Elohist 
and  the  Jehovist  of  the  older  theory,  but,  instead  of 
making  each  the  author  of  a  distinct  and  independent 
document,  which  were  subsequently  combined  and  pieced 
together  by  a  different  hand,  it  supposed  that  the  Elohist 
first  prepared  his  treatise,  which  lies  at  the  basis  through- 
out the  Pentateuch  and  constitutes  its  groundwork.  The 
Jehovist,  who  lived  later,  undertook  to  prepare  an  en- 
larged edition  of  this  older  history.  He  accordingly  re- 
tained all  that  was  in  the  earlier  work,  preserving  its  form 
and  language,  only  introducing  into  it  and  incorporating 
with  it  sections  of  his  own,  supplying  omissions  and 
amplifying  what  needed  to  be  more  fully  stated,  supple- 
menting it  by  means  of  such  materials  as  were  within  his 


THE    UNITY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  43 

reach,  and  making  such  additions  as  he  esteemed  impor- 
tant. 

This  form  of  the  hypothesis  not  only  provides,  as  the 
old  document  theory  had  done,  for  those  evidences  of 
unity  which  bind  the  various  Elohim  passages  to  one 
another,  and  also  the  various  Jehovah  passages,  but  it 
accounts  still  further  for  the  fact,  inexplicable  on  the 
document  theory,  that  the  Jehovah  sections  are  related 
to  the  Elohim  sections,  presuppose  them,  or  contain 
direct  and  explicit  allusions  to  them.  This  is  readily 
explained  by  the  supplementary  hypothesis ;  for  not 
only  would  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist  be  aware  of  what 
they  had  respectively  written  or  of  what  they  intended  to 
write  in  the  course  of  their  work,  but  in  addition  the 
Jehovist  is  supposed  to  have  the  treatise  of  the  Elohist 
in  his  hands,  to  which  all  that  he  writes  himself  is  merely 
supplemental.  It  is  quite  natural  for  him,  therefore,  to 
make  allusions  to  what  the  Elohist  had  written.  But  it 
is  not  so  easy  to  account  for  the  fact,  which  is  also  of 
repeated  occurrence,  that  the  Elohim  passages  allude  to 
or  presuppose  the  contents  of  Jehovah  passages.  Here 
the  theory  signally  breaks  down  ;  for  by  the  hypothesis 
the  Elohist  wrote  first  an  independent  production  without 
any  knowledge  of  and  of  course  without  the  possibility 
of  making  any  reference  to  the  additions  which  the 
Jehovist  was  subsequently  to  make. 

Another  halting  place  in  this  hypothesis  was  the  im- 
possibility of  making  out  any  consistent  view  of  the 
relation  in  which  the  Jehovist  stood  to  the  antecedent 
labors  of  the  Elohist.  The  great  proof,  w'hich  was 
insisted  upon,  of  the  existence  of  the  Jehovist  as  distinct 
from  the  Elohist  and  supplementing  the  treatise  of  the 
latter,  lies  in  the  diversity  of  style  and  thought  which 
are  alleged  to  characterize  these  two  classes  of  sections 
respectively.     Hence  it  was  necessary  to  assume  that  the 


44  AXTI-IlIfillKK    CRITICISM. 

Jehovist  faithfully  retained  the  language  of  the  Elohim 
document  unaltered,  and  that  his  own  peculiarities  were 
limited  to  the  sections  which  he  introduced  himself,  and 
that  there  they  were  exhibited  freely  and  without  reserve. 
It  is  frequently  the  case,  however,  that  the  ideas  or  dic- 
tion which  have  been  represented  to  belong  to  one  of 
these  classes  of  sections  are  found  likewise  in  the  other 
class.  Thus  Elohim  passages  are  found  to  contain  words 
and  phrases  which  have  been  alleged  to  characterize 
the  Jehovist,  and  to  contain  ideas  and  statements  which 
are  said  to  be  peculiarly  Jehovistic.  Here  it  is  neces- 
sary to  affirm  that  the  Jehovist,  instead  of  faithfully  tran- 
scribing the  Elohim  document,  has  altered  its  language 
and  inserted  expressions  or  ideas  of  his  own.  Again, 
Jehovah  passages  are  found  in  which  those  characteristics 
of  style  and  thought  appear  which  are  elsewhere  claimed 
as  peculiar  to  the  Elohist.  This  is  explained  by  saying 
that  the  Jehovist  in  such  cases  has  imitated  the  style  or 
adopted  the  ideas  of  the  Elohist,  and  has  sought  to  make 
his  own  additions  conform  as  far  as  possible  to  the  char- 
acteristic style  of  the  work  which  he  is  supplementing. 
Again,  while  it  is  alleged  that  the  Elohim  and  Jehovah 
passages  are  for  the  most  part  clearly  distinguishable, 
there  are  instances  in  which  it  is  difficult,  if  not  im- 
/  possible,  to  draw  a  sharp  line  of  demarkation  between 
(^  /  contiguous  Elohim  and  Jehovah  passages  and  to  de- 
/  termine  precisely  where  one  ends  and  the  other  begins. 
Here  the  Jehovist  is  thought  to  have  used  art  to 
cover  up  his  additions.  He  has  fitted  them  with  such 
care  and  skill  to  the  work  of  his  predecessor  that  the 
point  of  junction  cannot  be  discerned,  and  it  has  been 
made  to  look  like  one  continuous  composition.  In- 
stead of  allowing,  as  in  other  instances,  his  insertions 
to  remain  visibly  distinct  from  the  original  document, 
he  has  acted  as  if  he  desired  to  confuse  his  additions 


THE    UNITY    (n^-   THE    i'ENTATELCH.  45 

with  the  preexistnig  work  and  to  make  their  separation 
impossible. 

Now,  apart  from  the  fact  that  these  attempted  expla- 
nations of  phenomena  at  variance  with  the  primar}' 
hypothesis  are  merely  shifts  and  subterfuges  to  evade  the 
difficulty  which  they  create,  and  that  this  is  bringing 
unproved  hypotheses  to  support  an  Inpothesis,  ever\- 
tresh  addition  making  the  superstructure  weaker  instead 
of  confirming  it,  the  view  which  is  thus  presented  of  the 
Jehovist  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  At  one  time  we  must 
suppose  him  to  allow  the  most  obvious  diversity  of  style 
and  ideas  between  the  Elohist  sections  and  his  own 
without  the  slightest  concern  or  any  attempt  at  producing 
conformity  ;  at  others  he  modifies  the  language  of  the 
Elohist,  or  carefully  copies  him  in  the  sections  which  he 
adds  himself,  in  order  to  effect  this  conformity,  though  no 
special  motive  can  be  assigned  for  this  difference  in  his 
conduct.  He  sometimes  leaves  his  additions  uncon- 
nected with  the  original  work  which  he  is  supplementing  : 
at  other  times  he  weaves  them  in  so  adroitly  as  to  create 
the  appearance  of  continuity,  and  this  again  without  any 
assignable  motive.  An  hypothetical  personage,  who  has 
to  be  represented  by  turns  as  artless  and  artful,  as  an 
honest  reporter  and  a  designing  interpolator,  as  skillful 
and  a  bungler,  as  greatly  concerned  about  a  conformity 
of  style  and  thought  in  some  passages  of  which  he  is 
wholly  regardless  in  others,  and  of  whose  existence  we 
have  no  other  evidence  than  that  afforded  by  these  con- 
tradictory allegations  respecting  him,  can  scarcely  be  said 
to  have  his  reality  established  thus.  And  an  hypothesis 
which  is  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  bolstering  itself  up 
in  this  way  has  not  yet  reached  firm  footing. 

The    simplicity    of    the    supplementary    hypothesis, 
which  was  its  chief  recommendation,  proved  inadequate 
to  relieve  the  complications  which  beset  the  path  of  the 
4 


46  AXTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

divisive  critics.  Attempts  to  remedy  these  inconven- 
iences were  accordingly  made  in  different  lines  by  Ewald 
and  Hupfeld,  both  of  whom,  but  particularly  the  lat- 
ter, contributed  to  smooth  the  way  for  their  succes- 
sors. Ewald's  maiden  publication,  in  1822,  was  directed 
against  the  extreme  disintegration  of  the  fragmentary 
In'pothesis.  His  own  scheme,  proposed  twenty  years 
later,  has  been  appropriately  called  the  crystallization 
hypothesis.  This  is  a  modification  of  the  supplemen- 
tary by  increasing  the  number  engaged  in  supplementing 
from  one  to  a  series  successively  operating  at  distinct 
periods.  The  nucleus,  or  most  ancient  portion,  of  the 
Pentateuch,  in  his  opinion,  consisted  of  the  remnants  of 
four  primitive  treatises  now  existing  only  in  fragments 
imbedded  in  the  various  strata  which  were  subsequently 
accumulated  around  them.  This  was  followed  in  the 
second  place  by  what  he  calls  the  Book  of  the  Origins,  and 
this  by  what  he  denominates  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth 
prophetic  narrators,  each  of  whom  in  succession  added 
his  accretion  to  what  had  been  previously  recorded,  and 
the  last  of  whom  worked  over  all  that  preceded,  together 
with  his  own  additions  and  alterations,  into  one  continu- 
ous work.  Then  the  Deuteronomist  wrote  Deuteron- 
omy, which  was  first  issued  as  an  independent  publi- 
cation, but  was  subsequently  incorporated  with  the 
work  of  his  predecessors.  And  thus  the  Pentateuch,  or 
rather  the  Hexateuch  (for  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua 
were  regarded  by  him,  as  by  the  majority  of  advanced 
modern  critics  generally,  as  one  work) — thus  the  Hexa- 
teuch slowly  grew  to  its  present  dimensions,  a  vast  con- 
glomerate, including  these  various  accessions  made  in 
the  course  of  many  centuries. 

Hupfeld  undertook  to  remove  the  obstacles  which 
blocked  the  way  of  the  supplementary  hypothesis  in  a 
different  manner — not  b}'  introducing  fresh  supplements. 


THE   UNITY   OP^   THE   PENTATEUCH.  47 

but  by  abandoning  the  supplementing  process  altogether 
and  falling  back  upon  the  documentary  hypothesis,  of 
which  he  proposed  an  important  modification.  He 
aimed  chiefly  to  establish  two  things:  First,  that  the 
Jehovist  sections  were  not  disconnected  additions  to  a 
preexisting  document.  In  order  to  this  he  attempted  to 
bridge  over  the  breaks  and  chasms  by  the  aid  of  scattered 
clauses  arbitrarily  sundered  from  their  context  in  inter- 
vening Elohim  sections,  and  thus  made  a  shift  to  pre- 
serve a  scanty  semblance  of  continuity.  In  the  second 
place,  he  maintained  the  composite  character  of  the  Elo- 
hist  sections,  and  that  they  constituted  not  one  but  two 
documents.  The  troublesome  passages,  which  corre- 
sponded with  the  characteristics  of  neither  the  Elohist 
nor  the  Jehovist,  but  appeared  to  combine  them  both, 
were  alleged  to  be  the  product  of  a  third  writer,  who, 
while  he  used  the  name  Elohim,  had  the  diction  and 
other  peculiarities  of  the  Jehovist,  and  whom  he  accord- 
ingly called  the  second  Elohist.  Upon  this  scheme  there 
were  three  independent  documents,  that  of  the  first 
Elohist,  the  second  Elohist,  and  the  Jehovist.  And 
these  were  put  together  in  their  present  form  by  a  redac- 
tor, who  allowed  himself  the  liberty  of  inserting,  retrench- 
ing, modifying,  transposing,  and  combining  at  his  own 
pleasure.  All  references  from  one  document  to  the  con- 
tents of  another,  and  in  general  any  phenomena  that  con- 
flict with  the  requirements  of  the  hypothesis,  are  ascribed 
to  the  redactor. 

There  are  several  halting  places  in  this  scheme  of 
Hupfeld  : 

I.  One  is  that  the  creation  of  a  second  Elohist  de- 
stroys the  continuity  and  completeness  of  the  first.  The 
second  Elohist  is  supposed  to  begin  abruptly  with  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  Genesis.  From  that  point 
onward   to  the  end  of  the  book,  with  the  exception  of 


48  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

chapter  xxiii,  which  records  the  death  and  burial  of 
Sarah,  the  great  body  of  the  Elohim  passages  are 
given  to  the  second  Elohist,  and  nothing  reserved  for 
the  first  but  occasional  disconnected  scraps,  which 
never  could  have  formed  a  separate  and  independent 
record,  and  which,  moreover,  are  linked  with  and  imply 
much  that  is  assigned  to  the  other  documents.  So 
that  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  this  document  once 
contained  the  very  matter  which  has  been  sundered 
from  it. 

2.  It  is  also  a  suspicious  circumstance  that  the  first 
Elohist  breaks  off  almost  entirely  so  near  the  point 
where  the  second  Elohist  begins.  All  Elohist  passages 
before  Gen.  xx  are  given  to  the  first  Elohist  ;  all  after 
that,  with  trifling  exceptions,  to  the  second  Elohist.  This 
looks  more  like  the  severance  of  what  was  once  continu- 
ous than  the  disentangling  of  documents  once  separate, 
which  the  redactor  had  worked  together  section  by  sec- 
tion in  compiling  his  history. 

3.  Another  suspicious  circumstance  is  the  intricate 
manner  in  which  the  Jehovist  and  second  Elohist  are 
thought  to  be  combined.  In  many  passages  they  are  so 
intimately  blended  that  they  cannot  be  separated.  And 
in  general  it  is  admitted  to  be  impossible  to  establish  any 
clearly  defined  criteria  of  language,  style,  or  thought  be- 
tween them.  This  has  the  appearance  of  a  factitious 
division  of  what  is  really  the  product  of  a  single  writer. 
There  is  no  reason  of  an}'  moment,  whether  in  the  diction 
or  in  the  matter,  for  assuming  that  the  Jehovist  and  the 
second  Elohist  were  distinct  writers. 

4.  It  is  indeed  claimed  that  the  first  Elohist  is  clearly 
distinguishable  in  diction  and  in  matter  from  the  Jehovist 
and  the  second  Elohist.  But  there  are  several  consider- 
ations which  quite  destroy  the  force  of  the  argument 
for  distinct  documents  from  this  source,    (cr)  If  the  El<:)him 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  49 

sections  prior  to  Gen.  xx  are  thought  to  have  a  diction 
different  from  that  of  the  Jehovist,  and  the  great  body 
of  the  Elohim  sections  after  Gen.  xx  have  a  diction  con- 
fessedly indistinguishable  from  that  of  the  Jehovist,  the 
presumption  certainly  is  that  the  difference  alleged  in 
the  early  chapters  rests  on  too  limited  an  induction  ;  and 
when  the  induction  is  carried  further  it  appears  that  the 
conclusion  has  been  too  hasty,  and  that  no  real  differ- 
ence exists.  {I?)  Again,  the  great  bulk  of  the  narrative  of 
Genesis,  so  far  as  it  concerns  transactions  in  ordinary 
life,  is  divided  between  the  Jehovist  and  the  second 
Elohist.  The  first  Elohist  is  limited  to  genealogies, 
legal  sections,  extraordinary  events,  such  as  the  creation 
and  flood,  or  mere  isolated  notices,  as  of  births,  deaths, 
migrations,  etc.  That  matter  of  a  different  description 
should  call  for  the  use  of  a  different  set  of  words,  while 
in  matter  of  the  same  sort  like  words  are  used,  is  just 
what  might  be  expected  ;  and  there  is  no  need  of  assuming 
different  documents  in  order  to  account  for  it.  (c)  Still 
further,  when,  as  in  Gen.  xxxiv,  a  narrative  is  for  special 
reasons  assigned  in  part  to  the  first  Elohist,  it  is  as  im- 
possible to  distinguish  its  diction  from  that  of  the  other 
documents  as  it  elsewhere  is  to  distinguish  the  diction 
of  the  second  Elohist  from  that  of  the  Jehovist ;  and 
other  grounds  of  distinction  must  be  resorted  to  to  effect 
a  separation.  All  this  makes  it  evident  that  the  variant 
diction  alleged  is  due  to  the  difference  in  the  matter,  and 
not  to  diversity  of  documents. 

5.  The  function  assigned  to  the  redactor  assumes  that 
he  acts  in  the  most  capricious  and  inconsistent  manner, 
more  so  even  than  the  Jehovist  of  the  supplementary 
hypothesis.  At  times  he  is  represented  as  scrupulously 
careful  to  preserve  everything  contained  in  his  various 
sources,  though  it  leads  to  needless  and  unmeaning  rep- 
etition ;  at  others  he  omits  large  and  important  sections, 


i^>«4 


50  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

though  the  document  from  which  they  are  dropped  is 
thus  reduced  to  a  mutilated  remnant. 
'C  Where  his  sources  disagree  he  sometimes  retains  the 
narrative  of  each  unchanged,  thus  placing  the  whole  case 
fairly  before  his  readers ;  at  others  he  alters  them  into 
correspondence,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  historical 
honesty.  Variant  narratives  of  the  same  event  are  some- 
times harmonized  by  combining  them,  thus  confusing 
both  ;  sometimes  they  are  mistaken  for  distinct  and  even 
widely  separated  events  and  related  as  such — an  error 
which  reflects  upon  his  intelligence,  since  critics,  with  the 
incomplete  data  which  he  has  left  them,  are  able  to  cor- 
rect it.  He  sometimes  reproduces  his  sources  just  as  he 
finds  them  ;  at  others  he  alters  their  whole  complexion 
by  freely  manipulating  the  text  or  making  additions  of 
his  own.  Everything  in  diction,  style,  or  ideas  which  is 
at  variance  with  the  requirements  of  the  hypothesis  is 
laid  to  his  account  and  held  to  be  due  to  his  interference. 
The  present  text  does  not  suit  the  hypothesis;  therefore 
it  must  have  been  altered,  and  the  redactor  must  have 
done  it. 

It  is  evident  how  convenient  it  is  to  have  a  redactor 
always  at  hand  to  ^^hom  every  miscarriage  of  the  hypoth- 
esis can  be  attributed.  But  it  is  also  evident  that  the 
frequent  necessity  for  invoking  his  aid  seriously  weakens 
the  cause  which  he  is  summoned  to  support.  It  is  fur- 
ther evident  that  the  suspicions  cast  upon  the  accuracy 
with  which  the  redactor  has  transmitted  the  various  texts 
which  he  had  before  him  undermines  the  entire  basis  of 
the  hypothesis ;  for  it  undertakes  to  establish  the  exist- 
ence of  so-called  documents  and  to  discriminate  between 
them  by  verbal  criteria,  which  are  nullified  if  the  original 
jexits  have  been  tampered  with.  And  it  is  still  further 
evident  that  the  opposite  traits  of  character  impliedly 
ascribed  to  the  redactor  the  utterly  capricious  and  irra- 


THE   UNITY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  5 1 

tional  conduct  imputed  to  him  ;  and  the  wanton  and 
aimless  manipuhition  of  his  authorities,  for  which  no 
motive  can  be  assigned,  tends  to  make  this  most  in^'por- 
tant  functionary  an  impossible  conception. 

Both  Ewald  and  Hupfeld  were  regarded  at  the  time 
as  having  made  a  retrogradMion-  instead  of  an  advance,  be- 
falling back  from  the  simplicity  of  the  then  dominant 
supplementary  hj'pothesis  into  a  greater  complexit)'  tiian 
that  of  the  original  document  lu'pothesis.  The  fact  is, 
however,  that  the  complexity  inevitably  grows,  as  the 
critics  aim  at  greater  precision  and  endeavor  to  adapt 
their  scheme  more  exacth'  to  the  phenomena  with  which 
they  have  to  deal.  The  multiplication  of  machinery 
which  is  necessary  before  all  can  work  smoothly  so  over- 
loads their  apparatus  that  it  is  in  danger  of  breaking 
down  by  its  own  weight.  They  find  themselves  obliged 
to  pile  hypothesis  upon  hypothesis  in  order  to  relieve 
difficulties  and  explain  diversities,  and  account  for  irreg- 
ularities by  subdivided  documents,  and  successive  re- 
censions, and  a  series  of  redactors  and  unfathered 
glosses  and  variegated  legal  strata  and  diaskeuasts  in 
unlimited  profusion,  until  the  whole  thing  reaches  a  stage 
of  confusion  worse  confounded,  almost  equivalent  to 
that  of  the  exploded  fragmentary  hypothesis  itself. 

The  next  stage  of  the  critical  movement,  which  issued 
in  the  present  reigning  school  of  divisive  criticism, 
wrought  as  sudden  and  complete  a  revolution  in  the 
ideas  of  scholars  of  this  class  as  the  speculations  of  Dar- 
win effected  in  natural  history,  when  the  denial  of  the 
unity  of  the  human  race  collapsed  on  the  instant,  and  it 
was  held  instead  that  all  animated  being  had  sprung 
from  a  common  germ.  And  the  lever  which  effected 
the  overthrow  was  in  both  cases  the  same;  that  is,  the 
doctrine  of  development.  This  at  once  exalted  the 
speculations  of  Ewald    and  Hupfeld   to    a    prominence 


52  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

which  they  had  not  previously  attained,  and  made  them 
important  factors  in  the  new  advance.  From  Ewald  was 
borrowed  tlie  idea  that  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  not  accomplished  at  a  stroke,  by  one  act,  whether 
of  supplementing  or  of  combining  preexisting  documents, 
but  took  place  in  successive  stages  by  a  series  of  enlarg- 
ing combinations.  From  Hupfeld  were  derived  the  two 
pillars  of  his  scheme,  the  continuity  of  the  Jehovist  doc- 
ument and  the  composite  character  of  the  Elohist,  or,  in 
other  words,  that  the  Jehovist  did  not  merely  make  addi- 
tions to  a  preexisting  work,  but  wrote  an  independent 
work  of  his  own,  and  that  there  were  two  Elohists  in- 
stead of  one.  Thus  both  Ewald  and  Hupfeld,  without 
intending  or  imagining  it,  smoothed  the  way  for  the  rise 
of  a  school  of  criticism  with  ideas  quite  diverse  from 
their  own. 

The  various  attempts  to  partition  the  Pentateuch 
had  thus  far  been  based  on  exclusively  literary  grounds. 
Diction,  style,  ideas,  the  connection  of  paragraphs  and 
sentences,  supplied  the  staple  arguments  for  each  of  the 
forms  which  the  hypotheses  had  assumed,  and  furnished 
the  criteria  from  which  all  conclusions  were  drawn. 
Numerous  eftorts  had  been  made  to  ascertain  the  dates 
to  which  tlie  writers  severally  belonged.  Careful  studies 
were  instituted  to  discover  the  bias  under  which  they 
respectively  wrote  as  suggesting  the  influences  by  which 
they  might  be  supposed  to  be  surrounded,  and  hence 
their  historical  situation.  They  were  diligently  searched 
for  historical  allusions  that  might  afford  clew;  but  with 
all  the  pains  that  were  taken  no  sure  footing  could  be 
found,  and  the  critics  agreed  not  together.  Conjectures 
ranged  ad  libitiivi  through  the  ages  from  the  time  of 
Moses  or  his  immediate  successor,  Joshua,  to  that  of 
Josiah,  eight  centuries  later.  And  while  the  internal 
criteria  were  so  vague  there  was  no  external  support  on 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  53 

which  the  whole  hypothesis  could  rest,  no  objective 
proof  that  the  entire  fabric  was  not  a  sheer  figment  of 
the  imagination.  Amid  all  the  diversities,  however,  two 
points  were  universally  agreed  upon  and  regarded  as 
settled  beyond  contradiction:  i.  The  Elohist  was  the 
groundwork  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  it  supplied  the  scheme 
or  general  plan  into  which  the  other  parts  were  fitted. 
And  as  it  was  the  oldest,  so  it  was  historically  the  most 
reliable  and  trustworthy  portion.  The  Jehovist  was 
more  legendary,  depending,  as  it  was  believed  to  do, 
upon  later  and  less  credible  traditions.  2.  Deuteronomy 
was  the  latest  and  the  crowning  portion  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, by  the  addition  of  which  the  whole  work  was  ren- 
dered complete. 

Here  the  development  hypothesis  came  in  with  its 
revolutionary  conclusions.  It  supplied  the  felt  lack  of 
its  predecessors  by  fixing  definite  dates  and  offering 
objective  proof  of  their  correctness.  The  conclusions 
deduced  from  the  examination  of  the  Pentateuch  itself 
are  verified  by  an  appeal  to  the  history.  Arguments 
are  drawn,  not,  as  heretofore,  from  the  narratives  of  the 
Pentateuch,  but  from  its  institutions ;  not  from  its  his- 
torical portion,  but  from  its  laws.  The  principle  of  de- 
velopment is  applied.  The  simplest  forms  of  legislation 
are  to  be  considered  the  most  primitive.  As  the  Israel- 
ites developed  in  the  course  of  ages  from  rude  nomadic 
tribes  to  a  settled  and  well-organized  nation  their  legis- 
lation naturally  grew  in  complexity  and  extent.  Now 
the  Pentateuch  obviously  contains  three  distinct  codes 
or  bodies  of  law  :  One  in  Exod.  xx,  25,  which  is  called 
in  the  original  text  the  book  of  the  covenant.  This 
Moses  is  said  to  have  written  and  read  to  the  assembled 
people  at  Mount  Sinai  as  the  basis  of  the  covenant  rela- 
tion there  formally  ratified  between  Jehovah  and  Israel. 
Another  is  the  Deuteronomic  law,  which   Moses  is  said 


54  ANll-incilER    CRITICISM. 

to  have  rehearsed  to  the  people  in  the  plains  of  Moab 
shortly  before  his  death,  and  to  have  delivered  in  writ- 
ing to  the  custody  of  the  priests,  to  be  laid  up  alongside 
the  ark  of  the  covenant.  A  third  is  the  ritual  law,  or 
priest  code,  contained  in  the  latter  chapters  of  Exodus, 
the  Book  of  Leviticus,  and  certain  chapters  of  Numbers. 
This  law  is  declared  in  the  general  and  in  all  its  parts  to 
have  been  communicated  by  God  to  Moses. 

Advocates  of  this  hypothesis,  however,  take  issue  with 
these  explicit  statements,  and  affirm  that  these  codes 
could  not  have  had  the  origin  attributed  to  them.  The 
book  of  the  covenant,  from  its  simplicity  and  brevity, 
must  have  belonged  to  an  early  stage  in  the  history  of 
the  people.  From  this  there  is  a  great  advance  in  the 
Deuteronomic  code  ;  and  the  ritual  law,  or  priest  code, 
is  much  the  most  minute  and  complicated  of  all.  Long 
periods  must  have  elapsed  and  great  changes  have  taken 
place  in  the  condition  of  the  people  to  have  wrought 
such  changes  in  their  institutions.  The  book  of  the 
covenant,  primitive  as  it  is,  nevertheless  could  not  have 
been  enacted  in  the  desert  ;  for  it  has  laws  respecting 
fields  and  vineyards,  and  olive  yards  and  standing  grain 
and  grain  in  shocks,  and  offerings  of  first  fruit^and  six  years 
of  tillage,  with  a  sabbatical  year  whose  '  spontaneous 
products  should  be  for  the  poor  and  the  beast  of  the 
field,  and  harvest  feast,  and  feasts  of  ingathering.  All 
these  have  no  application  to  a  people  in  the  desert. 
They  belonged  to  a  settled  people  engaged  in  agricul- 
ture. Such  a  law  could  only  have  been  given  after  the 
settlement  of  the  peoplcof  Canaan. 

The  law  of  Deuteronom\',  while  greatly  expanded  be- 
yond the  book  of  the  covenant  in  its  provisions,  has  one 
marked  and  characteristic  feature  which  serves  to  define 
the  period  to  which  it  belongs.  The  book  of  the  cove- 
nant (Exod.  XX,  24)  sanctions  altars  in  all  places  w^here 


THE   UNITY   OF   TilE    PENTATEUCH.  55 

God  records  his  name.  Deuteronomy,  on  the  other 
hand  (chapter  xii),  strictly  Hmits  the  offering  of  sacrifice 
to  the  one  place  which  Jehovah  should  choose.  Now, 
it  is  said,  the  period  of  the  judges  and  the  early  kings  is 
marked  by  a  multiplicity  of  altars  and  worship  in  high 
places  in  accordance  with  the  book  of  the  covenant. 
But  in  the  reign  of  King  Josiah,  more  than  eight  hun- 
dred years  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  high  places 
were  abolished  and  sacrifice  was  restricted  to  the  altar 
in  Jerusalem.  And  this  was  done  in  obedience  to  the 
requirements  of  a  book  of  the  law  then  found  in  the  tem- 
ple (i  Kings  xxii,  8).  That  book  was  Deuteronomy.  It 
was  the  soul  of  the  entire  movement.  And  this  is  the 
period  to  which  it  belongs. 

This  new  departure,  though  successful  so  long  as  the 
pious  Josiah  lived,  spent  its  force  when  he  was  taken 
away  ;  and  under  his  ungodly  successors  the  people  re- 
lapsed again  into  the  worship  on  high  places,  the  popu- 
lar attachment  to  which  had  not  been  eradicated.  This 
was  effectually  broken,  however,  by  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  which  severed  the  people  from  the  spots  which 
they  had  counted  sacred,  until  all  the  old  associations 
had  faded  away.  The  returning  exiles,  impoverished  and 
few  in  number,  were  bent  only  on  restoring  the  temple 
in  Jerusalem,  and  had  no  other  place  at  which  to  wor- 
ship. It  was,  then,  under  these  circumstances  that  Ezra 
came  forth  with  a  fresh  book  of  law  adapted  to  the  new 
state  of  things  and  engaged  the  people  to  obedience 
(Neh.  viii).  This  book  was  the  ritual  law,  or  the  priest 
code.  It  also  limits  sacrifice  to  one  place,  as  was  done 
by  Deuteronomy,  but  in  the  latter  this  was  regarded  as 
a  new  departure,  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  introduce, 
and  which  is,  therefore,  reiterated  and  insisted  upon 
with  great  urgency.  In  the  priest  code,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  quietly  assumed   as  a  matter  of  course,  as  though 


$6  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

nothing  else  was  thought  of,  and  this  had  been  the 
established  rule  from  the  time  of  Moses.- 

It  had  been  customary  for  critics  to  attribute  the 
priest  code  to  the  Elohist,  and  the  book  of  the  covenant 
to  the  Jehovist ;  so  that  the  former  was  considered  the 
first  and  the  latter  the  second  legislation.  Graf,  who  in 
his  famous  essay  on  the  "  Historical  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament,"  in  1866,  undertook  to  reverse  this  order  in 
the  manner  already  indicated,  felt  it  necessary  to  sepa- 
rate the  historical  from  the  legal  portion  of  the  Elohist 
document,  and  to  maintain  that  while  the  former  was 
the  oldest  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  the  latter  was  the 
latest.  It  was  promptly  shown,  however,  in  opposition 
to  Graf,  that  such  a  separation  was  impossible.  The 
connection  between  the  Elohist  histories  and  the  ritual 
legislation  was  too  intimate  to  be  severed.  Kuenen, 
professor  in  Leyden,  then  boldly  grasped  the  situation, 
accepted  the  order  of  the  legislation  proposed  by  Graf, 
and  intrepidly  contended,  against  the  unanimous  voice 
of  all  antecedent  critics,  that  the  entire  Elohist  docu- 
ment, history  and  legislation,  was  the  latest  constituent 
of  the  Pentateuch.  This  reversal  of  all  former  beliefs  on 
this  subject,  rendered  necessary  by  the  development 
hypothesis,  met  at  first  with  determined  opposition.  It 
was  not  until  1878,  fifteen  years  ago,  that  Julius  Well- 
hausen  assumed  its  advocacy  in  the  first  volume  of  his 
History  of  Israel.  His  skillful  presentation  won  for  it  a 
sudden  popularity,  and  it  has  since  been  all  the  rage  in 
Germany.  Fifteen  years  of  supremacy  in  that  land  of 
speculation  is  scarcely  sufficient,  however,  to  guarantee 
its  permanence  even  there.  The  history  of  the  past 
would  rather  lead  one  to  expect  that  in  no  long  time  it 
will  be  replaced  by  some  fresh  novelty. 

This  reversal  of  the  order  of  the  Elohist  and  the 
Jehovist    at    once    put    an    end    to    the    supplemental 


THE    UNITY    OF    THK    PENTATEUCH  5/ 

hypothesis.  For  the  Jchovist  could  not  have  made  ad- 
ditions to  the  Elohist  document  if  that  document  did 
not  come  into  existence  until  centuries  after  his  time. 
It  thus  became  necessary  to  assume  that  the  Jehovist 
passages,  however  isolated  and  fragmentary,  constituted 
a  separate  document  ;  and  the  continuity  was  made  out 
as  proposed  by  Ilupfeld,  by  using  scattered  clauses  torn 
from  their  connection  to  bridge  the  chasms.  The  second 
Elohist  of  Hupfeld  also  became  a  necessit}',  though  now 
supposed  to  antedate  the  first.  The  passages  in  the 
patriarchal  history  alluded  to  by  Hosea  and  other  early 
prophets  must  be  eliminated  from  the  Elohist  document 
before  this  can  be  reckoned  postexilic.  The  great  bulk 
of  the  history  is  accordingl)'  made  over  to  the  second 
Elohist,  and  so  this  argument  of  early  date  is  evaded. 
In  this  manner  the  way  is  smoothed  for  turning  all  former 
conceptions  of  the  critics  regarding  the  formation  of  the 
Pentateuch  upside  down.  The  Elohim  document,  from 
being  the  oldest  and  most  reliable,  becomes  the  latest 
and  the  least  trustworthy.  It  is  even  charged  that  its 
facts  are  manufactured  for  a  purpose;  that  the  author 
makes  statements,  not  because  he  has  evidence  of  their 
truth,  but  because  they  correspond  with  his  ideas  of 
what  ought  to  have  occurred,  and  w^hich  he  therefore 
imagines  must  have  occurred.  Instead  of  representing 
the  Mosaic  age  as  it  really  was,  he  gives,  as  Dr.  Driver 
expresse(|!  it  (Introduction  to  Old  Testament,  p.  120), 
"  an  ideal  picture  "  of  it. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity  the   Pentateuchal  documents 
are    commonly    denoted  by  symbols.     Dr.   Djllmann,  a  ^ 

strenuous  opposer  to  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis,  though       ^*x 
adopting  many  of  his  conclusions  in  detail,  employs  the 
first  four  letters  of  the  alphabet,  indicating  thereby  their 
chronological  order.     He  calls  the  Elohist  A,  the  second 
Elohist  B,  the  Jehovist  C,  and  the.  Deuteronomist    D, 


58  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

thus  emphasizing  his  adherence  to  the  old  critical  ar- 
rangement. In  the  nomenclature  that  is  now  most 
prevalent  the  term  Elohist  is  applied  exclusively  to 
what  used  to  be  known  as  the  second  Elohist,  and  it  is 
represented  by  E,  the  Jehovist  by  J.  J  and  E  are  re- 
garded as  the  oldest  of  the  documents,  and  as  belonging 
six  or  seven  centuries  after  the  exodus.  They  are  al- 
leged to  have  emanated  from  prophetic  circles,  J  in  the 
southern  kingdom  of  Judah  and  E  in  the  northern  king- 
dom of  Israel ;  critics  are  not  agreed  which  preceded  the 
other.  They  were  combined  by  a  redactor  into  the  com- 
posite work,  JE,  prior  to  the  production  of  Deuteron- 
omy, D,  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  or  shortly  before,  eight 
centuries  after  the  exodus.  This  was  then  added  to  the 
preceding  by  another  redactor,  thus  forming  JED.  The 
second  Elohist  having  been  separated  from  what  used 
to  be  known  as  the  Elohist  document,  the  remnant  was 
by  Wellhausen  fancifully  called  Q,  the  initial  of  qua- 
tuor-^4,  because  of  the  four  covenants  it  contains.  Others 
prefer  to  designate  it  as  P,  the  priestly  writer,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  prophetic  historians,  J  and  E.  P  was  pro- 
duced after  the  exile,  and  was  subsequently  added  by 
another  redactor  to  the  preexisting  JED ;  then  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  complete. 

In  this  hasty  recital  of  the  current  critical  view  of  the 
date  of  the  several  documents,  and  of  their  gradual  com- 
bination, no  note  is  taken  of  subordinate  features  of  the 
process,  such  as  J',  J",  E',  E",  P',  P",  P^'",  the  sub- 
divisions of  the  documents,  the  successive  editions,  the 
various  strata  of  the  ritual,  and  the  entire  complicated 
series  of  subsidiary  personages  who  are  supposed  to  have 
had  a  hand  in  building  up  the  Pentateuch  to  its  present 
form.  A  general  outline  of  the  course  of  procedure  is 
all  that  has  been  attempted. 

It  has  already  been    remarked,  as  is  indeed   obvious 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  59 

upon  its  face,  that  the  development  hypothesis  iiatly 
contradicts  throughout  the  account  which  the  Penta- 
teuch gives  of  itself.  The  laws  are  all  explicitly  declared 
to  have  been  Mosaic,  to  have  been  written  down  by 
Moses,  or  to  have  been  communicated  to  him  directly 
from  the  Lord.  And  there  is  no  good  reason  for  discred- 
iting the  biblical  statements  on  this  subject.  The  three 
codes  belong  precisely  where  the  Scripture  narrative 
places  them,  and  they  are  entirely  appropriate  in  that 
position.  The  elementary  character  of  the  book  of  the 
covenant  is  explained,  not  by  its  superior  antiquity,  but 
by  its  preliminary  purpose.  It  was  a  brief  body  of  regu- 
lations intended  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  formal  ratifica- 
tion of  the  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  the  people  of 
Israel.  Accordingly,  all  that  was  required  was  a  few  sim- 
ple and  comprehensive  rules,  framed  in  the  spirit  of  the 
religion  of  Jehovah  for  the  government  of  the  people  in 
their  relations  to  one  another  and  in  their  relation  to  God, 
to  which,  in  a  solemn  act  of  worship,  they  were  to  pledge 
assent.  After  this  fundamental  act  had  been  duly  per- 
formed, and  the  covenant  relation  had  thus  been  insti- 
tuted and  acknowledged  by  both  the  contracting  parties, 
the  way  was  open  for  a  fuller  development  of  the  duties 
and  obligations  involved  in  this  relation.  Jehovah,  as 
the  covenant  God  of  Israel,  would  henceforth  take  up  his 
abode  in  the  midst  of  his  people.  This  made  it  neces- 
sary that  detailed  instructions  should  be  given,  for  which 
there  was  no  occasion  before,  respecting  the  construc- 
tion of  the  sacred  tabernacle,  the  services  to  be  per- 
formed in  it,  the  officiating  priesthood,  the  set  times  for 
special  solemnities,  and  in  general  the  entire  ritual  to  be 
observed  by  a  holy  people  for  the  expression  and  perpet- 
uation of  their  communion  with  a  holy  God.  All  this 
was  embodied  in  the  priest  code,  in  which  the  scanty 
general  provisions  of  the  book  of  the  covenant  regarding 


6o  ANTI-HIGIIKR   CRITICISM. 

divine  worship  were  replaced  by  a  vastly  expanded  and 
minutely  specified  ceremonial.  This  was  not  a  develop- 
ment implying  the  lapse  of  ages  with  an  altered  civiliza- 
tion and  a  corresponding  advance  in  the  popular  notions 
of  the  divine  Being  and  of  the  homage  that  should  be 
paid  to  him. 

At  the  close  of  the  forty  years'  wandering,  when  the 
great  legislator  was  about  to  die,  he  recapitulated  in  the 
audience  of  the  people  the  laws  already  gi\en  in  the 
book  of  the  covenant,  with  such  modifications  and  addi- 
tions as  were  suggested  by  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  were  placed,  the  experience  of  the  past,  and  the 
prospect  of  the  future.  The  Deuteronomic  code  thus 
enacted  was  a  development,  not  as  the  priest  code  had 
been,  on  the  side  of  the  ritual,  but  considered  as  a  code 
for  popular  guidance  in  civil  and  religious  matters.  The 
enlargement,  which  we  here  find,  of  the  simple  regula- 
tions of  the  book  of  the  covenant  implies  no  longer 
interval  and  no  greater  change  in  the  condition  or  con- 
stitution of  the  people  than  is  provided  for  in  the  Scrip- 
ture narrative.  And  at  the  same  time  the  fact  that  we 
do  not  find  in  Deuteronomy  a  ritual  so  elaborate  and 
minutely  detailed  as  in  Leviticus  is  not  because  Leviti- 
cus is  the  further  development  of  a  still  later  period, 
when  ceremonies  were  more  multiplied  and  held  in 
higher  esteem,  but  simply  because  Leviticus  was  a  pro- 
fessional book  and  Deuteronomy  was  a  popular  book. 
Leviticus  was  for  the  guidance  of  the  priests,  who  were 
professionally  charged  with  the  oversight  and  direction 
of  the  ceremonial,  and  Deuteronomy  for  the  guidance  of 
the  people  in  matters  more  immediately  within  their 
province.  Medical  works  for  the  instruction  of  phy- 
sicians must  necessarily  be  more  minute  than  sanitary 
rules  for  popular  use.  And  if  it  would  be  absurd  to  sa\' 
that  the  same  eminent  physician  could  not  produce  both 


THE    UNITY    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  6 1 

a  professional  and  a  popular  treatise  on  medicine  it  is 
equally  so  to  insist,  as  the  critics  do,  that  Deuteronomy 
and  Leviticus  cannot  both  be  from  the  same  age  and  the 
same  legislator. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  agricultural 
allusions  in  the  book  of  the  covenant  are  not  in  conflict 
with  its  Mosaic  origin  and  its  delivery  at  Sinai.  The 
people  were  on  their  way  to  Canaan.  This  land  had 
been  promised  to  their  fathers,  and  the  Lord  had  renew- 
edly  promised  to  give  it  to  them.  It  was  with  this  ex- 
pectation that  they  left  Egypt.  For  this  they  were 
marching  through  the  desert.  Canaan  was  their  antici- 
pated home,  the  goal  of  their  hopes.  They  confidently 
trusted  that  they  would  soon  be  settled  there  in  full 
possession.  That  there  was  to  be  even  so  much  as  a 
delay  of  forty  years,  and  that  the  entire  adult  generation 
was  to  pass  away  before  this  hope  was  fulfilled  never 
entered  the  mind  of  the  leader  or  the  people,  since 
neither  could  have  imagined  such  an  act  of  gross  rebel- 
lion as  that  for  which  they  were  sentenced  to  perish  in 
the  wilderness.  It  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if 
the  law  given  under  these  circumstances  did  not  look 
beyond  the  desert  as  their  abode  and  took  no  note  of 
what  was  in  immediate  prospect.  It  was  quite  appro- 
priate for  it  to  contemplate  their  expected  life  in  Canaan 
and  to  give  regulations  respecting  the  fields  and  vine- 
\irds  and  olive  yards  which  they  were  shortly  to  pos- 
sess. 

And  there  is  no  such  difference  as  is  pretended  between 
the  book  of  the  covenant  and  the  other  Mosaic  codes  in 
respect  to  the  place  of  legitimate  sacrifice.  It  is  not  true 
that  the  former  sanctioned  a  multiplicity  of  altars  and 
that  this  was  the  recognized  practice  of  pious  worshipers 
of  Jehovah  until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  that  he  insti- 
tuted a  new  departure  from  all  previous  law  and  custom  by 
5 


62  ANTI-IIIGIIER    CRITICISM. 

restricting  sacrifice  to  one  central  altar  in  compliance  with 
a  book  of  the  law  then  for  the  first  time  promulgated. 
The  unity  of  the  altar  was  the  law  of  Israel's  life  from 
the  beginningi  feven  in  the  days  of  the  patriarchs,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob^  coexisting  in  various  parts  of  the 
land.  They  built  altarh  and  offered  sacrifice  in  whatever 
part  of  the  land  they  might  be,  particularly  in  places 
where  Jehovah  appeared  to  them.  But  the  patriarchal 
family  was  a  unit ;  and  while  they  worshiped  in  different 
places  successively,  in  the  course  of  the, migrations,  they 
nevertheless  worshiped  in  but  one  place  at  a  time.  They 
did  not  offer  sacrifice  contemporaneously  on  different 
altars.  So  with  Israel  in  their  marches  through  the 
wilderness.  They  set  up  their  altars  wherever  they 
encamped,  at  various  places  successively,  but  not  in  more 
than  one  place  at  the  same  time.  This  is  the  state  of  things 
which  is  recognized  and  made  legitimate  in  the  book  of 
the  covenant.  In  Exod.  xx,  24,  the  Israelites  are  author- 
ized to  erect  an  altar,  not  wherever  they  may  please,  but  in 
all  places  where  God  records  his  name.  The  critics  in- 
terpret this  as  a  direct  sanction  given  to  various  sanctu- 
aries in  different  parts  of  Palestine.  There  is  no  foun- 
dation whatever  for  such  an  interpretation.  There  is 
not  a  word  here  nor  anywhere  in  Scripture  from  which 
the  legitimacy  of  the  multitudinous  sanctuaries  of  a 
later  time  can  be  inferred.  An  altar  is  lawful,  and  sacri- 
fice upon  it  acceptable,  and  God  will  there  meet  with 
his  people  and  bless  them  only  where  he  records  his 
name  ;  not  where  men  may  utter  his  name,  whether  by 
invocation  or  proclamation,  but  where  God  reveals  or 
manifests  himself.  He  manifested  himself  gloriously  on 
Sinai  amidst  awful  indications  of  his  presence.  This  was 
Moses's  warrant  for  building  an  altar  there  (Exod.  xxiv,  4). 
When  the  tabernacle  was  erected  and  the  ark  deposited 
in  it  as  the  c.biding  sj'mbol  of  the  divine  presence,  tli.it 


THE    UNITY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  63 

became  the  spot  where  God  recorded  his  name,  and  to 
which  all  sacrifices  were  to  be  brought  (Lev.  xvii,  5).  So 
that  wherever  the  tabernacle  or  the  ark  was  stationed  an 
altar  might  properly  be  erected  and  sacrifices  offered. 

And  Deut.  xii  looks  forward  to  the  time  when  Israel 
should  be  permanently  settled  in  the  land  which  Jehovah 
their  God  was  giving  them  to  inherit,  and  he  should  have 
given  them  rest  from  all  their  enemies  round  about  so  that 
they  should  dwell  in  safety  ;  then  he  would  choose  a  place 
out  of  all  their  tribes  to  put  his  name  there,  and  that 
should  thenceforth  be  his  habitation  and  the  sole  place 
of  legitimate  sacrifice.  These  conditions  were  not  ful- 
filled until  the  peaceful  reign  of  Solomon,  who  by  divine 
direction  built  the  temple  as  Jehovah's  permanent  abode. 
Here  the  Most  High  placed  his  name  b\'  filling  it  with 
his  effulgent  glory  at  its  dedication,  and  thenceforward 
this  was  the  one  place  whither  the  people  went  up  to 
meet  with  God  and  worship  him  by  sacrifice  ;  thither 
they  directed  their  prayers,  and  from  his  holy  hill  of  Zion 
God  sent  forth  his  help  and  his  salvation. 

There  is  thus  the  most  entire  concord  between  the 
several  codes  in  regard  to  the  place  of  sacrifice.  It  was 
from  the  beginning  limited  to  the  place  of  divine  mani- 
festation. As  this  manifestation  was  on  all  ordinary  occa- 
sions restricted  first  to  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  and  then 
to  the  temple  of  Solomon,  the  language  of  the  book  of 
the  covenant,  no  less  than  that  of  the  Levitical  and 
Deuteronomic  codes,  demanded  that  sacrifice  should  ordi- 
narily be  restricted  to  these  sacred  edifices.  Only  the 
book  of  the  covenant,  which  lays  down  the  primal  and 
universal  law  of  the  Hebrew  altar,  is  wider  in  its  scope, 
inasmuch  as  it  embraces  those  extraordinary  occasions, 
likewise,  for  which  there  was  no  need  to  miake  express 
provisions  i;i  the  other  codes.  If  God  manifested  him- 
self by  an  immediate  and  supernatural  appearance  else- 


64  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

where  than  at  the  saiictuaiy,  that  spot  became,  not  per- 
manently, indeed,  but  so  long  as  the  manifestation  lasted, 
holy  ground  and  a  place  of  legitimate  sacrifice.  And, 
on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Most  High  at  any  time  withdrew 
his  ordinary  presence  from  the  sanctuary,  as  when  the 
ark  was  captured  by  the  Philistines,  the  sanctuary  ceased 
to  be  the  place  where  God  recorded  his  name,  the  re- 
striction of  sacrifice  to  that  spot  was  ipse  facto  for  the 
time  abolished,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  definite  pro- 
vision for  the  regular  seat  of  God's  worship  the  people 
were  left  to  offer  sacrifice  as  best  they  might.  To  the 
extent  of  these  two  exceptional  cases  the  book  of  the 
covenant  is  more  comprehensive  than  the  other  codes. 
But  it  lends  no  sanction  whatever  to  that  irregular  and  un- 
regulated worship  which  the  critics  would  make  it  cover. 

After  the  capture  of  the  ark,  and  during  the  period  of 
its  seclusion  in  a  private  house  which  followed,  the  wor- 
ship on  high  places  had  a  certain  sort  of  legitimacy,  as 
is  expressly  stated  in  i  Kings  4^,  2,  as  it  had  also  at  a  later 
period  in  the  apostate  kingdom  of  Israel,  where  the  pious 
were  denied  access  to  the  house  of  God  in  Jerusalem. 
But  apart  from  these  exceptional  cases  worship  at  other 
altars  than  that  at  the  sanctuary  was  in  violation  of  the 
express  statute.  The  critics  argue  the  nonexistence  of 
the  law  of  the  unity  of  the  altar  from  its  repeated  viola- 
tion. They  might  with  equal  propriety  argue  that  there 
was  no  law  forbidding  the  worship  of  other  gods  than 
Jehovah,  because  the  Israelites  so  often  relapsed  into  the 
worship  of  Baal  and  other  foreign  deities. 

While  these  various  hypotheses  which  have  thus  suc- 
cessively arisen,  each  at  the  ruin  of  its  predecessor,  are, 
as  has  been  shown,  individually  encumbered  with  the 
insuperable  difficulties  peculiar  to  each,  the  Gaftaa«-  argu- 
ments by  which  their  advocates  seek  to  establish  them 
are    insufficient    and    inconclusive.     The    alternation    of 


THE   UNITY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  65 

divine  names  can  be  otherwise  explained,  and  it  can  only  • 
be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  partition  hypothesis 
by  a  free  use  of  the  redactor  and  the  assumption  of  re- 
peated changes  of  the  text.  Exod.  vi,  3,  has  not  the 
meaning  that  the  critics  attribute  to  it.  The  continuity 
of  the  documents  is  broken  by  serious  chasms,  or  main- 
tained by  very  questionable  methods;  and  it  is  necessary 
to  assume  in  numerous  instances  that  the  documents 
originally  contained  paragraphs  and  sections  similar  to 
those  which  the  critics  now  sunder  from  them.  The 
alleged  parallel  passages  are  falsely  assumed  identifica- 
tions of  distinct  events,  and  the  diversity  of  diction,  style, 
and  ideas  is  made  out  by  utterly  fallacious  and  inconclu- 
sive methods. 

The  great  outstanding  evidence  of  unity,  which  never 
can  be  nullified,  is  the  unbroken  continuity  of  the  history, 
the  consistent  plan  upon  which  the  whole  is  prepared,  and  •- 
the  numerous  cross  references  which  b^nd  the  whole  to-  ^ 
gether  as  the  work  of  one  mind.  Separate  and  independent 
documents,  mechanically  pieced  together,  could  no  more 
produce  such  an  appearance  of  unity  as  reigns  throughout 
the  Pentateuch  than  a  faultless  statue  could  be  formed 
out  of  discordant  fragments  from  different  sources. 

The  partition  hypotheses  have  further  been  elaborated 
from  the  beginning  in  the  interest  of  unbelief.  The  un- 
friendly criticism  of  an  opponent  does  not  indeed  absolve 
us  from  patiently  and  candidly  examining  his  arguments 
and  accepting  whatever  facts  he  may  adduce,  though  we 
are  not  bound  by  his  perverted  interpretation  of  them. 
Nevertheless  we  cannot  intelligently  nor  safely  overlook 
the  palpable  bias  against  the  supernatural  which  has 
infected  the  critical  theories  which  we  have  been  review- 
ing from  first  to  last.  All  the  acknowledged  leaders  of 
the  movement  have  without  exception  scouted  the  reality 
of  miracles  and  prophecy  and  immediate  divine  revelation 


66  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

in  their  genuine  and  evangelical  sense.  Their  theories 
are  all  inwrought  with  naturalistic  presuppositions,  which 
cannot  be  disentangled  from  them  without  their  falling 
to  pieces.  Evangelical  scholars  in  Germany,  as  elsewhere, 
have  steadfastly  opposed  these  theories,  refuted  their  ar- 
guments, and  exposed  malign  tendencies.  Only  recently 
there  has  been  an  attempt  at  compromise  by  accepting 
these  critical  theories  and  endeavoring  to  harmonize  them 
with  the  Christian  faith.  But  the  inherent  vice  in  these 
systems  cannot  be  eradicated.  The  invariable  result  has 
been  to  lower  the  Christian  faith  to  the  level  of  these 
perverted  theories,  instead  of  lifting  the  latter  up  to  the 
level  of  a  Christian  standard. 

The  futility  of  the  methods  by  which  the  Pentateuch 
has  been  parceled  into  different  documents  may  further 
be  shown  by  the  readiness,  with  which  it  can  be  applied, 
and  with  equal  success,  to  writings  the  unity  of  which 
is  indisputable.  To  illustrate  this  I  have  applied  it  to 
a  couple  of  passages  selected  at  random,  the  parables 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  of  the  Good  Samaritan.  The 
fact  that  a  narrative  can  be  so  divided  as  to  form  two 
continuous  narratives  is  reckoned  by  the  critics  a  dem- 
onstration of  its  composite  character,  and  that  the  parts 
into  which  it  has  been  severed  are  the  original  sources 
from  which  it  has  been  compounded.  Let  us  test  this 
by  the  parables  just  referred  to  : 

The  Prodigal  Son,  Luke  xv,  11-32. 
A  _,  B 

II   A  certain  man  had  two  sons  :  ■'  (A   certain  man    had    two  sons:)      ,, 

12  And  theyouni^er  of  tliem  said  to  .  .    .    12^  And  he  divided  unto  them      '' 

his  father,  Father,  give  me  the  por-  his  living.  .  .  .  13  And" (one  of  them)    h 

tion.«  .that  falleth  to  me.  .  .^j^-He  toolv  his  journey  into  a  far  countr}-. 

wasted  his  substance  in  riotous  liv-  ...      14  And    when  he  liad  spent 

ing.   .   .  .    r4  And  he  began  to  be  in  all,  tliere  arose  a  mighty  famine  in 

want.  ...      16  And    no  man  gave  that    country.  ...       15     And     he 

unto   him.   ...     20  And  he  arose,  went  and  joined  himself  to  one    of 


l,CUx 


tA-^^tCZC^  ^UA:^JPiU/'  '  '"  ^'  «  /*'  -  ^-   i'^"'^ 


J-Lf-     t-^t.>i^(ledJl-CUyJrXo 


THE    UNITY   OF   THE   PENTATUECH. 


6y 


nnd  came  to  his  father  ;  .  .  .  ami 
•~^n^.  lan,  and  fell  on  his  neck,  and 
'  kissed  him.  21  And  the  son  said 
unto  him,  Father,  I  have  sinned 
against  heaven,  and  in  thy  sight :  I 
am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy 
son.  22  But  the  father  said  to  his 
servants,  Bring  forth  quickly  the 
best  robe,  and  put  it  on  him  ;  and 
put  a  ring  on  his  hand,  and  shoes  on 
his  feet :  .  .  .  24  For  this  my  son 
was  dead,  and  is  alive  again.  .  .  . 
And  they  began  to  be  merry.  25 
Now  his  elder  son  was  in  the  field  : 
and  as  he  came  and  drew  nigh  to 
'P  the  house,  ...  28  }ie  was  angry 
and  would  not  go  in  :  and  his  father 
came  out,  and  entreated  him.  29 
But  he  answered  and  said  to  his 
father,  Lo,  these  many  years  do  I 
serve  thee,  and  I  never  transgressed 
a  commandment  of  thine  :  and  yet 
thou  never  gavest  me  a  kid,  that  I 
might  make  merry  with  my  friends  : 
30  But  when  this  thy  son  came, 
which  hath  devoured  thy  living  with 
harlots,  thou  killedst  for  him  the 
fatted  calf.  31  And  he  said  unto 
him.  Son,  thou  art  ever  with  me, 
and  all  that  is  mine  is  thine.  32 
But  it  was  meet  to  make  merry  and 
be  glad  :  for  this  thy  brother  was 
dead,  and  is  alive  again. 

There  are  here  two  complete  narratives  agreeing  in 
some  points  and  disagreeing  in  others,  each  having  its 
special  characteristics.  The  only  deficiencies  are  inclosed 
in  parentheses,  and  may  be  readily  explained  as  omissions 
by  the  redactor  in  effecting  the  combination.  A  clause 
must  be  supplied  at  the  beginning  of  B,  a  subject  is 
wanting  in  verse  13  and  verse  25,  and  the  verb  "  said  " 
is  wanting  in  verse  23. 


the  citizens  of  that  country  ;  and  he 
sent  him  into  his  fields  to  feed 
swine.  16  And  he  would  fain  have 
been  filled  with  the  husks  that 
the  swine  did  eat.  ...  17  But 
when  he  came  to  himself  he  said, 
How  many  hired  servants  of  my 
father's  have  bread  enough  and  to 
spare,  and  I  perish  here  with  hun- 
ger !  18  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my 
father,  and  will  say  unto  him, 
Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heav- 
en, and  in  thy  sight :  19  I  am  no 
more  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son  : 
make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  serv- 
ants. ...  20  But  while  he  was  yet 
afar  off,  his  father  saw  him,  and  was 
moved  with  compassion  :  ...  23  And 
"(said).  Bring  the  fatted  calf,  and 
kill    it,    and  let    us  eat,  and  make 

merry 25  (\nd  the  other  son) 

heard  music '  tind  dancing.  26 
And  he  called  to  him  one  of  the 
servants,  and  inquired  what  these 
things  might  be.  27  And  he  said 
unto  him.  Thy  brother  is  come  ; 
and  thy  father  hath  killed  the 
fatted  calf,  because  he  hath  received 
him  safe  and  sound.  .  .  32  He 
was  lost  and  is  found. 


&- 


68  ANTI-IilGHER   CRITICISM. 

A  and  B  agree  that  there  were  two  sons,  one  of  whom 
received  a  portion  of  his  father's  property  and  by  his 
own  fault  was  reduced  to  great  destitution,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  he  returned  penitently  to  his  father 
and  addressed  him  in  language  which  is  nearly  identical 
in  both  accounts.  The  father  received  him  with  great 
tenderness  and  demonstrations  of  joy,  which  attracted 
the  attention  of  the  other  son. 

The  differences  are  quite  as  striking  as  the  points 
of  agreement.  A  distinguishes  the  sons  as  elder  and 
younger ;  B  makes  no  mention  of  their  relative  ages. 
In  A  the  younger  obtained  his  portion  by  solicitation,  and 
the  father  retained  the  remainder  in  his  own  possession ; 
in  B  the  father  divided  his  property  between  both  of  his 
sons  of  his  own  motion.  In  A  the  prodigal  remained  in 
his  father's  neighborhood  and  reduced  himself  to  penury 
by  riotous  living ;  in  B  he  went  to  a  distant  country  and 
spent  all  his  property,  but  there  is  no  intimation  that  he 
indulged  in  unseemly  excesses.  It  would  rather  appear 
that  he  was  injudicious;  and  to  crown  his  misfortunes 
there  occurred  a  severe  famine.  His  fault  seems  to  have 
consisted  in  having  gone  so  far  away  from  his  father  and 
from  the  Holy  Land  and  in  engaging  in  the  unclean  oc- 
cupation of  tending  swine.  In  A  the  destitution  seems 
to  have  been  chiefly  want  of  clothing;  in  B  want  of 
food.  Hence  in  A  the  father  directed  the  best  robe  and 
ring  and  shoes  to  be  brought  for  him  ;  in  B  the  fatted 
calf  was  killed.  In  B  the  son  came  from  a  distant  land 
and  the  father  saw  him  -fpem  afar  off;  in  A  he  came 
from  the  neighborhood,  and  the  father  ran  at  once  and 
fell  on  his  neck  and  kissed  him.  In  B  he  had  been  en- 
gaged in  a  menial  occupation,  and  so  bethought  himself 
of  his  father's  hired  servants,  and  asked  to  be  made  a 
servant  himself;  in  A  he  had  been  living  luxuriously, 
and  while  confessing  his  unworthiness  makes  no  request 


THE   UNITY   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 


69 


to  be  put  on  the  footing  of  a  servant.  In  A  the  father 
speaks  of  his  son  having  been  dead  because  of  his  profli- 
gate life ;  in  B  of  his  having  been  lost  because  of  his 
absence  in  a  distant  land.  In  A,  but  not  in  B,  the  other 
son  was  displeased  at  the  reception  given  to  the  prodi- 
gal. And  here  it  would  appear  that  the  redactor  has 
slightly  altered  the  text.  The  elder  son  must  have  said  to 
his  father  in  A,  "When  this  thy  son  came,  which  hath  de- 
voured thy  living  with  harlots,  thou  didst  put  on  him 
the  best  robe."  But  thinking  that  this  did  not  make  a 
good  contrast  with  the  "  kid  "  the  redactor  substituted 
for  it  the  phrase,  "  thou  killedst  for  him  the  fatted  calf." 

The  Good  Samaritan,  Luke  x,  29-37. 


29  But  he  [that  is,  the  lawyer 
(verse  25)],desiring  to  justify  himself, 
said  unto  Jesus,  And  who  is  my  neigli- 
bor  ?  30  Jesus  made  answer  and 
said,    A    certain    man    was    going 


30,  (A  certain  man)  fell  among 
robbers,  which  stripped  him  .  .  . 
and  departed.  ...  32  Arid  (in  like 
manneV)  a  Levite  i^lsoX  when  he 
came   to    the  place  tC^-nd  saw  him. 


down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho;  passed  by  on  the  other  sid^T.  .  .  33^  v 
.  .  ,  and  they  beat  him,  .  .  .  leav-  -^nd  when  he  saw  him,  he  was  moved  l 
ing  him  half  dead.  31  And  by  chance 
a  certain  priest  was  going  down 
that  way :  and  when  he  saw  him,  he 
passed  by  on  the  other  side.  .  .  . 
33  But  a  certain  Samaritan,  as  he 
journeyed,    came   where    he    was : 


with  compassion.  .  .  .  34^  And 
he  set   him   on  his  own  beast,  and 

brought  him  to  an  inn 35  And  on 

the  morrow  he  took  out  two  pence, 
and  gave  them  to  the  host,  and 
said.  Take  care  of  him  ;   and  what- 


Ij- 


34  And  came  to  him,  and  bound      soever  thou  spendest  more,  I,  when 


up  his  wounds,  pouring  on  them  oil 
and  wine,  ,  .  .  and  took  care  of 
him.  .ji».  .  36  Which  of  these 
(threeX  Uiinkest  thou,  proved  neigh- 
bor unto  him?  ...  37  And  he 
said,  He  that  showed  mercy  on  him. 


back 


again, 


will 


I    come 
thee.   .  .  . 

37    And    Jesus    said    unto    hir 
(that  fell  among    the    robbers^,  Go, 
and  do  thou  likewise. 


repay 


'^ 


...     ^ 


Both  narratives  are  complete ;  only  a  subject  must  be 
supplied  in  B,  verse  30  the  omission  of  which  was  rendered 
necessary  by  its  being  combined  with  A.  The  redactor 
has  tampered  with   the  text  and  materially  altered  the 


70  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

sense  in  verse  32  from  his  desire  to  put  the  Levite  on 
the  same  plane  with  the  priest  (verse  31),  the  language  of 
which  he  has  borrowed.  In  other  respects  the  original 
texts  of  the  two  narratives  remain  unaltered. 

Both  narratives  agree  that  a  man  greatly  abused  by- 
certain  parties  was  treated  with  generous  kindness  by  a 
stranger,  and  that  Jesus  deduced  a  practical  lesson  from 
it.  But  they  differ  materially  in  detail.  A  relates  his 
story  as  a  parable  of  Jesus  in  answer  to  a  lawyer's  ques- 
tion. B  makes  no  mention  of  the  lawyer  or  his  question, 
but  seems  to  be  relating  a  real  history. 

The  spirit  of  the  two  is  quite  different.  A  is  anti- 
Jewish,  B  pro- Jewish.  In  A  the  aggressors  are  Jews, 
people  of  Jerusalem  or  Jericho,  or  both,  and  a  priest 
pitilessly  leaves  the  sufferer  to  his  fate,  while  it  is  a  Sa- 
maritan, with  whom  the  Jews  were  in  perpetual  feud, 
who  takes  pity  on  him.  In  B  the  aggressors  are  robbers, 
outlaws  whose  nationality  is  not  defined,  and  it  is  a  Le- 
vite who  shows  mercy. 

The  maltreatment  is  different.  In  A  the  sufferer  is 
beaten  and  half  killed,  and  needs  to  have  his  wounds 
bound  up  and  liniments  applied.  In  B  he  was  stripped 
of  all  he  had  and  left  destitute,  but  no  personal  injury 
was  inflicted.  Accordingly  he  was  taken  to  an  inn  and 
his  wants  provided  for  at  the  expense  of  his  benefactor. 

The  lesson  inculcated  is  different.  In  A  it  is  that  the 
duty  of  loving  his  neighbors  is  not  limited  to  those  of 
the  same  nation,  nor  annulled  by  national  antipathies.  In 
B  it  is  that  he  who  has  been  befriended  himself  should 
befriend  others. 

These  illustrations  may  serve  to  show  how  the  critics 
create  discrepancies  and  contradictions  where  none 
really  exist,  by  sundering  what  properly  belongs  to- 
gether. They  also  show  the  inconclusiveness  of  their 
method  of  argument. 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  7 1 


MOSAIC  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


BY  W.  HENRY  GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  in  Princeton   Theological  Seminary, 

If  the  Pentateuch  is  what  it  claims  to  be  it  is  of  the 
greatest  interest  and  value.  It  professes  to  record  the 
origin  of  the  world  and  of  the  human  race — a  primitive 
state  of  innocence  from  which  man  fell  by  yielding  to 
temptation,  the  history  of  the  earliest  ages,  the  relation- 
ship subsisting  between  the  different  nations  of  mankind, 
and  particularly  the  selection  of  Abraham  and  his  de- 
scendants to  be  the  chosen  people  of  God,  the  depositaries 
of  divine  revelation,  in  whose  line  the  Son  of  God  should 
in  due  time  become  incarnate  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
It  further  contains  an  account  of  the  providential  events 
accompanying  the  development  of  the  seed  of  Abraham 
from  a  family  to  a  nation,  their  exodus  from  Egypt,  and 
the  civil  and  religious  institutions  under  which  they  were 
organized  in  the  prospect  of  their  entry  into  and  occu- 
pation of  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  contents  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch stand  thus  in  intimate  relations  to  the  problems 
of  physical  and  ethnological  science,  to  history  and  archae- 
ology and  religious  faith.  All  the  subsequent  revelations 
of  the  Bible  and  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  itself  rest 
upon  the  foundation  of  what  is  contained  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, as  they  either  presuppose  or  directly  affirm  its 
truth. 

It  is  a  question  of  primary  importance,  therefore,  both 
in  itself  and  in  its  consequences,  whether  the  Pentateuch 
is  a  veritable,  trustworthy  record,  or  is  a  heterogeneous 


72  ANTI-HlGHEk   CRITICISM. 

mass  of  legend  and  fable,  from  which  only  a  modicum  of 
truth  can  be  doubtfully  and  with  difficulty  elicited.  Can 
we  lay  it  at  the  basis  of  our  investigations  and  implicitly 
trust  its  representations,  or  must  we  admit  that  its  un- 
supported word  can  only  be  received  with  caution,  and 
that  of  itself  it  carries  but  little  weight?  In  the  settle- 
ment of  this  matter  a  consideration  of  no  small  conse- 
quence is  that  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Its 
credibility  is,  of  course,  not  absolutely  dependent  upon 
its  Mosaic  authorship.  It  might  be  all  true  though  it 
were  written  by  another  than  Moses  and  after  his  time. 
But  if  it  was  written  by  Moses,  then  the  history  of  the 
Mosaic  age  was  recorded  by  a  contemporary  and  eye- 
witness, one  who  was  himself  a  participant  and  a  leader 
in  the  scenes  which  he  related,  and  the  legislator  from 
whom  the  enactments  proceeded  ;  and  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  there  is  in  this  fact  the  highest  possible  guar- 
antee of  the  accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  whole.  It 
is  to  the  discussion  of  this  point  that  your  attention  is 
now  invited.     Is  the  Pentateuch  the  work  of  Moses? 

I,  It  is  universally  conceded  that  this  was  the  tradi- 
tional opinion  among  the  Jews.  To  this  the  New  Tes- 
tament bears  the  most  abundant  and  explicit  testimon}-. 
The  Pentateuch  is  by  our  Lord  called  "  the  book  of 
Moses"  (Mark  xii,  26);  when  it  is  read  and  preached 
the  apostles  say  that  Moses  is  read  (2  Cor.  iii,  15)  and 
preached  (Acts  xv,  21).  The  Pentateuch  and  the  books 
of  the  prophets,  which  were  read  in  the  worship  of  the 
synagogue,  are  called  both  by  our  Lord  (Luke  xvi,  29, 
31)  and  the  evangelists  (Luke  xxiv,  27),  "  Moses  and 
the  prophets,"  or  "  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  " 
(Luke  xxiv,  44;  Acts  xxviii,  23).  Of  the  injunctions 
of  the  Pentateuch  not  only  do  the  Jews  say  when 
addressing  our  Lord,  "  Moses  commanded  "  (John  viii, 
5),    but  our    Lord    repeatedly   uses    the  same    form    of 


MOSAIC    ORIGIN    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  73 

speech  (Matt,  viii,  4;  xix,  7,  8  ;  Mark  i,  44;  x,  3 ;  Luke  v, 
14),  as  testified  by  three  of  the  evangeUsts.  Of  the  law 
in  general  he  says  Moses  gave  the  law  (John  vii,  19),  and 
the  evangelist  echoes,  "  The  law  was  given  by  Moses  " 
(John  i,  17);  and  that  Moses  was  not  only  the  author  of 
the  law,  but  committed  its  precepts  to  writing,  is  affirmed 
by  the  Jews  (Mark  xii,  19),  and  also  by  our  Lord  (Mark 
vi,  5),  who  further  speaks  of  him  as  writing  predictions 
respecting  himself  (John  v,  46,  47),  and  also  traces  a 
narrative  in  the  Pentateuchal  history  to  him  (Mark  x,  5). 

It  has  been  said  that  our  Lord  here  speaks  not  author- 
itatively, but  by  accommodation  to  the  prevailing  senti- 
ment of  the  Jews,  and  that  it  was  not  his  purpose  to  settle 
questions  in  biblical  criticism  ;  but  the  fact  remains  that 
he  in  varied  forms  of  speech  explicitly  confirms  the  cur- 
rent belief  that  Moses  wrote  the  books  ascribed  to  him. 
For  those  who  reverently  accept  him  as  an  infallible 
teacher  this  settles  the  question.  The  only  alternative 
is  to  assume  that  he  was  not  above  the  liability  to  err  ;  in 
other  words,  to  adopt  what  has  been  called  the  kenotic 
view  of  his  sacred  person,  that  he  completely  emptied 
himself  of  his  divine  nature  in  his  incarnation,  and  dur- 
ing his  abode  on  earth  was  subject  to  all  the  limitations 
of  ordinary  men.  Such  a  lowering  of  view  respecting 
the  incarnate  person  of  our  Lord  may  logically  affect  the 
acceptance  of  his  instructions  in  other  matters.  He  him- 
self says  (John  iii,  12),  "  If  I  have  told  you  earthly  things, 
and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe,  if  I  tell  you  of 
heavenly  things?  " 

2.  That  the  Pentateuch  was  the  production  of  Moses 
and  the  laws  which  it  contained  were  the  laws  of  Moses 
was  the  firm  faith  of  Israel  from  the  beginning,  and  is 
clearly  reflected  in  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  final  injunction  of  the  last  of  the  prophets  (Mai.  iv,  4) 
is,  "  Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant,  which  I 


74  ANTI-IIICIIKK    CRITICISM. 

commanded  unto  him  in  Ilorcb  for  all  Israel,  with  the 
statutes  and  judgments."  The  regulations  adopted  by 
the  Jews  returned  from  captivity  were  not  recent  enact- 
ments of  their  leaders,  but  the  old  Mosaic  institutions 
restored.  Thus  (Ezra  iii,  2)  they  built  the  altar  and  es-  . 
tablished  the  ritual,  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses." 
After  the  new  temple  was  finished  they  set  priests  and 
Levites  to  their  respective  service,  "  as  it  is  written  in  the 
book  of  Moses"  (Ezra  vi,  18).  When  subsequently  Ezra 
led  up  a  fresh  colony  from  Babylon  he  is  characterized 
as  "  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses  "  (Ezra  vii,  6). 
At  a  formal  assembly  of  the  people  held  for  the  purpose 
"  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  "  was  read  and  explained 
to  them  day  by  day  (Neh.  viii,  i,  18).  Allusions  are 
made  to  the  injunctions  of  the  Pentateuch  in  general  or 
in  particular  as  the  law  which  God  gave  to  Moses  (Neh. 
i,  7,  8  ;  viii,  14  ;  ix,  14  ;  x,  29),  or  as  written  in  the  law 
(verses  34,  36),  or  in  the  book  of  Moses  (Neh.  xiii,  i). 

In  the  captivity  Daniel  (ix,  ii,  13)  refers  to  matters 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch  as  "  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses."  After  the  long  defection  of  Manasseh  and 
Amon  the  neglected  '*  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  by 
Moses  "(2  Kings  xxii,  8  ;  xxiii,  25  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv,  14,  30; 
XXXV,  6,  12)  was  found  in  the  temple,  and  the  reformation 
of  Josiah  was  in  obedience  to  its  instructions.  The  pass- 
over  of  Hezekiah  was  observed  according  to  the  pre- 
scriptions of  "  the  law  of  Moses  "  (2  Chron.  xxx,  16),  and 
in  general  Hezekiah  is  commended  for  having  kept  the 
"  commandments,  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses" 
(2  Kings  xviii,  6).  The  ten  tribes  were  carried  away 
captive,  because  they  "transgressed"  what  Moses  com- 
manded (2  Kings  xviii,  12).  King  Amaziah  did  (2  Kings 
xiv,  6;  2  Chron.  xxv,  4)  "as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of 
the  book  of  Moses,"  Deut.  xxiv,  16,  being  here  quoted 
in  exact  terms.     The  high  priest  Jehoiada  directed   the 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  75 

ritual  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  "  (2  Chron. 
xxiii,  18),  while  appointing  the  singing  as  it  was  ordained 
by  David — a  discrimination  which  shows  that  there  was 
no  such  legal  fiction,  as  it  has  sometimes  been  contended, 
by  which  laws  in  general,  even  though  recent,  were  attrib- 
uted to  Moses.     David  charged  Solomon  (i  Kings  ii,  3  ; 

1  Chron.  xxii,  13)  to  keep  what  "is  written  in  the  law 
of  Moses  ;  "  and  a  like  charge  was  addressed  by  the  Lord 
to  David  himself  (2  Kings  xxi,  8;  2  Chron.  xxxiii,  8). 
Solomon  appointed  the  ritual  of  his  temple  in  accordance 
with   the  "commandment  of  Moses"  (i   Chron.  vi,  49; 

2  Chron.  viii,  13).  When  the  ark  was  taken  by  David  to 
Zion  it  was  borne  "as  Moses  commanded"  (i  Chron. 
XV,  15).  Certain  of  the  Canaanites  were  left  in  the  land 
in  the  time  of  Joshua  "  to  prove  Israel  by  them,  to  know 
whether  they  would  hearken  unto  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord,  which  he  commanded  their  fathers  by  the 
hand  of  Moses"  (Judg.  iii,  4).  Joshua  was  directed  "  to 
do  according  to  all  the  law,  which  Moses  my  servant 
commanded  thee"  (Josh,  i,  7),  and  was  told  that  "this 
book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth  "  (Josh, 
i,  8).  And  in  repeated  instances  it  is  noted  with  what 
exactness  he  followed  the  directions  given  by  Moses. 

It  is  to  be  presumed,  at  least  until  the  contrary  is 
shown,  that  "  the  law  "  and  "  the  book  of  the  law  "  have 
the  same  sense  throughout  as  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
also  in  Josephus  and  in  the  prologue  to  the  Book  of  Sirach 
or  Ecclesiasticus,  where  they  are  undeniably  identical 
with  the  Pentateuch.  The  testimonies  which  have  been 
reviewed  show  that  this  was  from  the  first  attributed  to 
Moses.  At  the  least  it  is  plain  that  the  sacred  historians 
of  the  Old  Testament  without  exception  regarded  the 
law  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  law  of  Moses. 

3.  Let  us  next  inquire  what  the  Pentateuch  says  of 
itself.     It  may  be  roughly  divided  for  our  present  purpose 


76  ANTI-IIIGIIKR    CRITICISM. 

into  two  parts:  (i)  Genesis  and  Exodus  i~xix,  historical ; 
(2)  Exodus  XX  to  Deuteronomy,  mainly  legal.  The  legal 
portion  consists  of  three  distinct  bodies  of  law,  each  having 
its  own  peculiar  character  and  occasion.  The  first  is  de- 
nominated the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  embraces 
Exodus  xx-xxiii,  the  Ten  Commandments,  with  the  ac- 
companying judgments  or  ordinances,  which  were  the 
stipulations  of  the  covenant  then  formally  ratified  between 
the  Lord  and  the  people.  This  Moses  is  expressly  said 
(Exod.  xxiv,  4)  to  have  written  and  read  in  the  audience 
of  the  people,  who  promised  obedience;  whereupon  the 
covenant  was  concluded  with  appropriate  sacrificial  rites. 

By  this  solemn  transaction  Israel  became  the  Lord's 
covenant  people,  and  he  in  consequence  established  his 
dwelling  in  the  midst  of  them  and  there  received  their 
worship.  This  gave  occasion  to  the  second  body  of  laws, 
which  has  been  called  the  Priest  Code,  relating  to  the 
sanctuary  and  the  ritual.  This  is  contained  in  the  rest 
of  Exodus,  chapters  xxv-xl  (with  the  exception  of  three 
chapters — xxxii-xxxiv — relating  to  the  sin  of  the  golden 
calf),  the  whole  of  Leviticus,  and  the  regulations  found  in 
the  Book  of  Numbers,  where  they  are  intermingled  with 
the  history  which  suggests  the  occasion  of  the  laws  and 
supplies  the  connecting  links.  This  priest  code  is 
expressly  declared  in  all  its  parts  to  have  been  directh' 
communicated  by  the  Lord  to  Moses,  in  part  on  the 
summit  of  Mount  Sinai,  during  his  forty  days'  abode 
there,  in  part  while  Israel  lay  encamped  at  the  base  ol 
the  mountain,  and  in  part  during  their  subsequent  wan- 
derings in  the  wilderness. 

The  third  body  of  law  is  known  as  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  and  embraces  the  legal  portion  of  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  was  delivered  by  Moses  to  the  people 
in  the  plains  of  Moab,  in  immediate  prospect  of  Canaan,  in 
the  eleventh  month  of  the  fortieth  year  of  their  wanderings 


MOSAIC    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH.  // 

in  the  wilderness.  This  Moses  is  expressly  said  to  have 
written  and  to  have  committed  to  the  custody  of  the 
Levites,  who  bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (Deut.  xxxi, 
24-26). 

The  entire  law,  therefore,  in  explicit  and  positive  terms 
claims  to  be  Mosaic.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  and 
Deuteronomic  law  are  expressly  affirmed  to  have  been 
written  by  Moses.  The  Priest  Code,  or  the  ritual  law, 
was  given  by  the  Lord  to  Moses,  and  by  him  to  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  though  Moses  is  not  in  so  many  words  said 
to  have  written  it. 

Turning  from  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  to  its  nar- 
ratives, we  find  two  passages  expressly  attributed  to  the 
pen  of  Moses.  After  the  victory  over  Amalek  at  Reph- 
idim,the  Lord  said  unto  Moses  (Exod.  xvii,  14),  "Write 
this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book."  The  fact  that  such  an 
injunction  was  given  to  Moses  in  this  particular  instance 
seems  to  imply  that  he  was  the  proper  person  to  place  on 
record  whatever  was  memorable  and  worthy  of  preserva- 
tion in  the  events  of  the  time.  And  it  may  perhaps  be 
involved  in  the  language  used  that  Moses  had  already 
begun  or  at  least  contemplated  the  preparation  of  a  con- 
nected narrative,  to  which  reference  is  here  made,  since 
in  the  original  the  direction  is  not,  as  in  the  English  ver- 
sion, "  write  in  a  book,"  but  in  "  the  book." 

Again,  in  Num.  xxxiii,  2,  a  list  of  the  various  stations  of 
the  children  of  Israel  in  their  marches  or  their  wanderings 
in  the  wilderness  is  ascribed  to  Moses,  who  is  said  to  have 
written  their  goings  out  according  to  their  journeys  by 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord. 

No  explicit  statements  are  made  in  the  Pentateuch  it- 
self in  regard  to  any  other  paragraphs  of  the  history  than 
these  two.  But  it  is  obvious  from  the  whole  plan  and 
constitution  of  the  Pentateuch  that  the  history  and  the 
legislation  are  alike  integral  parts  of  one  complete  work. 
6 


78  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

Genesis  and  the  opening  chapters  of  Exodus  are  plainly 
preliminary  to  the  legislation  that  follows.  The  histor- 
ical chapters  of  Numbers  constitute  the  framework  in 
which  the  laws  are  set,  binding  them  all  together  and  ex- 
hibiting the  occasion  of  each  separate  enactment.  If  the 
legislation  in  its  present  form  is,  as  it  claims  to  be,  Mosaic, 
then  beyond  all  controversy  the  preparatory  and  connect- 
ing history  must  be  Mosaic  likewise.  If  the  laws,  as  we 
now  have  them,  came  from  Moses,  by  inevitable  sequence 
the  history  was  shaped  by  the  same  hand,  and  the  entire 
Pentateuch,  history  as  well  as  legislation,  must  be  what 
we  have  already  seen  all  after  ages  steadfastly  regarded 
it,  the  production  of  Moses. 

4.  The  style  in  which  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
framed,  and  the  terms  in  which  they  are  drawn  up,  corre- 
spond with  the  claim  which  they  make  for  themselves 
and  which  all  subsequent  ages  make  for  them,  that  they 
are  of  Mosaic  origin.  Their  language  points  unmistaka- 
bly to  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  prior  to  the  occupa- 
tion of  Canaan  as  the  time  when  they  were  produced. 
They  are  forbidden  alike  to  do  after  the  doings  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  wherein  they  had  dwelt,  or  those  of  the 
land  of  Canaan,  whither  God  was  bringing  them  (Lev.  xviii, 
3).  They  are  reminded  (Deut.  xii,  9)  that  they  had  not 
yet  come  to  the  rest  and  the  inheritance  which  the  Lord 
their  God  was  giving  them.  The  standing  designation 
of  Canaan  is  the  land  which  the  Lord  giveth  them  to 
possess  it  (Deut.  xv,  4.  7).  The  laws  look  forward  to  the 
time  "  when  thou  art  come  into  the  land,"  etc.,  "  and  sliall 
possess  it"  (Deut.  xvii,  14;  Lev.  xiv,  34,  etc.),  or, 
"  when  the  Lord  hath  cut  off  the  nations,  and  thou  suc- 
ceedest  them,  and  dwellest  in  their  cities  "  (Deut.  xix,  i),  as 
the  period  when  they  are  to  go  into  full  operation  (Deut. 
xii,  I,  8,  9).  The  place  of  sacrifice  is  not  where  Jehovah 
has  fixed  his  habitation,  but  "the  place  which  Jehovah 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  79 

shall  choose  to  put  his  name  there  "  (Deut.  xii,  5,  etc.). 
Israel  is  contemplated  as  occupying  a  camp  (Num.  v, 
2-4,  etc.),  and  living  in  tents  (Lev.  xiv,  8)  and  in  the  wil- 
derness (Lev.  xvi,  21,  22).  The  bullock  of  the  sin  offering 
was  to  be  burned  without  the  camp  (Lev.  iv,  12,  21). 
The  ashes  from  the  altar  were  to  be  carried  without  the 
camp  (vi,  11).  The  leper  was  to  have  his  habitation 
without  the  camp  (xiii,  46) ;  the  priest  was  to  go  forth  out 
of  the  camp  to  inspect  him  (xiv,  3)  ;  ceremonies  are  pre- 
scribed for  his  admission  to  the  camp  (verse  8),  as  well 
as  the  interval  which  must  elapse  before  his  return  to  his 
own  tent.  In  slaying  an  animal  for  food  the  only  possi- 
bilities suggested  are  that  it  may  be  in  the  camp  or  out 
of  the  camp  (xvii,  2).  The  law  of  the  consecration  of 
priests  respects  by  name  Aaron  and  his  sons  (viii,  2). 
Two  of  these  sons,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  commit  an  offense 
which  causes  their  death,  a  circumstance  which  calls 
forth  some  special  regulations  (Lev.  x),  among  others 
those  of  the  annual  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi,  i),  on 
which  Aaron  was  the  celebrant  (verse  3),  and  the  camp  and 
the  wilderness  the  locality  (verses  21,  22,  26,  27).  The 
tabernacle,  the  ark,  and  other  sacred  vessels  were  made 
of  shittim  wood  (Exod.  xxxvi,  20),  which  was  peculiar 
to  the  wilderness.  The  sacred  structure  was  made  of 
separate  boards,  so  joined  together  that  it  could  be 
readily  taken  apart,  and  explicit  directions  are  given  for 
its  transportation  as  Israel  journeyed  from  place  to  place 
(Num.iv,  ^,  seg.),  and  wagons  and  oxen  were  contributed 
for  the  purpose  (Num.  vii). 

Specific  instructions  are  given  for  the  arrangement  of 
the  several  tribes  both  in  their  encampments  and  their 
marches  (Num.  ii).  Silver  trumpets  were  made  to  direct 
the  calling  of  the  assembly  and  the  journeying  of  the 
host  (Num.  X,  2).  The  ceremonies  of  the  red  heifer  were 
to  be  performed  without  the  camp  (Num.  xix,  3,  7,  9),  and 


8o  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

by  Eleazar  personally  (verses  3,  4).  The  law  of  purifica- 
tion provided  simply  for  death  in  tents  and  in  the  open 
fields  (verses  14,  16). 

The  peculiarity  of  these  laws  carries  with  it  the  evi- 
dence that  they  were  not  only  enacted  during  the  sojourn 
in  the  wilderness,  but  that  they  were  then  committed  to 
writing.  Had  they  been  preserved  orally  the  forms  of 
expression  would  have  been  changed  insensibly,  to  adapt 
them  to  the  circumstances  of  later  times.  It  is  only  the 
unvarying  permanence  of  a  written  code  that  could  have 
perpetuated  these  laws  in  a  form  which  in-after  ages,  when 
the  people  were  settled  in  Canaan,  and  Aaron  and  his 
sons  were  dead,  no  longer  described  directly  and  precisely 
the  thing  to  be  done,  but  must  be  mentally  adapted 
to  an  altered  state  of  affairs  before  they  could  be  carried 
into  effect. 

The  laws  of  Deuteronomy  are  besides  prefaced  by  two 
farewell  addresses  delivered  by  Moses  to  Israel  on  the 
plains  of  Moab  (Deut.  i,  5;  v,  1),  which  are  precisely 
adapted  to  the  situation,  and  express  those  feelings  to 
which  the  great  leader  might  most  appropriately  have 
given  utterance  under  the  circumstances.  And  the  most 
careful  scrutiny  shows  that  the  diction  and  style  of 
thought  in  these  addresses  are  identical  with  those  of  the 
laws  that  follow.  Both  have  emanated  from  one  mind 
and  pen.  The  laws  of  Deuteronomy  are  further  followed 
by  a  prophetic  song  (Deut.  xxxii),  which  Moses  is  said 
to  have  written  (xxxi,  19),  and  by  a  series  of  blessings 
upon  the  several  tribes,  which  he  is  said  to  have  pro- 
nounced before  his  death  (xxxiii,  i),  all  which  are  en- 
tirely appropriate  in  the  situation. 

The  genuineness  of  these  laws  is  further  vouched  for 
by  the  fact  that  a  forged  body  of  statutes  could  never 
be  successfully  imposed  upon  any  people.  These  laws 
entered  minutely  into   the  affairs  of  daily  life,  imposed 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  8 1 

burdens  that  would  not  have  been  voluntarily  assumed, 
and  could  only  have  been  exacted  by  competent  author- 
ity. That  they  were  submitted  to  and  obeyed  is  evidence 
that  they  really  were  ordained  by  Moses,  in  whose  name 
they  were  issued.  If  they  had  first  made  their  appear- 
ance in  a  later  age  the  fraud  would  inevitably  have  been 
detected.  The  people  could  not  have  been  persuaded 
that  enactments  never  before  heard  of  had  come  down 
from  the  great  legislator  and  were  invested  with  his 
authority. 

And  the  circumstance  that  these  laws  are  said  to  have 
been  given  at  Mount  Sinai,  in  the  wilderness,  or  in  the 
plains  of  Moab  is  also  significant.  How  came  they  to  be 
attributed  to  a  district  outside  of  the  Holy  Land,  which 
had  no  sacred  associations  in  the  present  or  in  the  patri- 
archal age,  unless  they  were  really  enacted  there?  and 
if  so,  this  could  only  have  been  in  the  days  of  Moses. 

5.  The  Pentateuch  is  either  directly  alluded  to  or  its 
existence  implied  in  numerous  passages  in  the  subsequent 
books  of  the  Bible.  The  Book  of  Joshua,  which  records 
the  history  immediately  succeeding  the  age  of  Moses, 
is  full  of  these  allusions.  It  opens  with  the  children 
of  Israel  in  the  plains  of  Moab  and  at  the  point  of  cross- 
ing the  Jordan,  just  where  Deuteronomy  left  them.  The 
arrangements  for  the  conquest  and  the  subsequent  division 
of  the  land  are  in  precise  accordance  with  the  directions 
of  Moses,  and  are  executed  in  professed  obedience  to  his 
orders.  The  relationship  is  so  pervading  and  the  corre- 
spondence so  exact  that  those  who  dispute  the  genuine- 
ness and  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  are  obliged  to 
deny  that  of  Joshua  likewise.  The  testimony  rendered 
to  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch  by  the  books  of 
Chronicles  at  every  period  of  the  history  which  they 
cover  is  so  explicit  and  repeated  that  it  can  only  be  set 
aside  by  impugning  the  truth  of  their   statements  and 


82  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

alleging  that  the  writer  has  throughout  colored  the  facts 
which  he  reports  by  his  own  prepossessions,  and  substi- 
tuted his  own  imagination  for  the  real  state  of  the  case. 

But  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  remaining  historical 
books,  though  less  abundant  and  clear,  tends  in  the  same 
direction.  And  it  is  the  same  with  the  books  of  the 
prophets  and  the  Psalms.  We  find  scattered  everywhere 
allusions  to  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  its 
institutions  and  sometimes  to  its  very  language,  which 
afford  cumulative  proof  that  its  existence  was  known  and 
its  standard  authority  recognized  by  the  writers  of  all  the 
books  subsequent  to  the  Mosaic  age. 

6.  Separate  mention  should  here  be  made,  and  stress 
laid  upon  the  fact,  which  is  abundantly  attested,  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  known  and  its  authority  admitted 
in  the  apostate  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  time 
of  the  schism  of  Jeroboam.  In  order  to  perpetuate  his 
power  and  prevent  the  return  of  the  northern  tribes  to 
the  sway  of  the  house  of  David,  he  established  a  separate 
sanctuary  and  set  up  an  idolatrous  worship.  Both  the 
rulers  and  people  were  under  the  strongest  temptation  to 
disown  the  Pentateuch,  by  which  both  their  idolatrous 
worship  and  their  separate  national  existence  were  so 
severely  condemned;  and  yet  the  evidence  is  varied  and 
abundant  that  their  national  life,  in  spite  of  its  degen- 
eracy, had  not  wholly  emancipated  itself  from  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  even  their  debased 
worship  was  but  a  perverted  form  of  that  purer  service 
which  the  laws  of  Moses  had  ordained. 

It  was  at  one  time  thought  that  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch supplied  a  strong  argument  at  this  point.  The 
Samaritans,  while  they  recognize  no  other  portion  of  the 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  in  possession  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  Hebrew  language,  but  written  in  a 
peculiar  character,  which  is  a  more  ancient  and  primitive 


MOSAIC    ORIGIN    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH.  83 

form  of  the  alphabet  than  that  which  is  found  in  any- 
Hebrew  manuscript.  It  was  argued  that  such  was  the 
hostihty  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  that  neither 
could  have  adopted  the  Pentateuch  from  the  other.  It 
was  consequently  held  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
must  be  traced  to  copies  existing  in  the  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes,  which  further  evidence  that  the  Pentateuch 
must  have  existed  at  the  time  of  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam, 
and  have  been  of  such  undisputed  divine  authority  then 
that  even  in  their  schism  from  Judah  and  their  apostasy 
from  the  true  worship  of  God  they  did  not  venture  to 
discard  it.  Additional  investigation,  however,  has  shown 
that  this  argument  is  unsound.  The  Samaritans  are  not 
descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  but  of  the  heathen  colonists 
introduced  into  the  territory  of  Samaria  by  the  Assyrian 
monarchs  after  tlie  ten  tribes  had  been  carried  into  cap- 
tivity, and  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  does  not  date  back 
of  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  mutual  hatred  of  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans  originated  then.  The  Samaritans, 
in  spite  of  their  foreign  birth,  claimed  to  be  the  brethren 
of  the  Jews,  and  proposed  to  unite  with  them  in  rebuild- 
ing the  temple  at  Jerusalem  (Ezra  iv,  2,  3);  but  the 
Jews  repudiated  their  claim  and  refused  their  offered 
assistance.  The  Samaritans,  thus  repulsed,  sought  in 
every  way  to  hinder  and  annoy  the  Jews  and  frustrate 
their  enterprise,  and  finally  built  a  rival  temple  of  their 
own  on  the  summit  of  Mount  Gerizim.  Meanwhile,  to 
substantiate  their  claim  of  being  sprung  from  ancient 
Israel,  they  eagerly  accepted  the  Pentateuch,  which  was 
brought  them  by  a  renegade  priest. 

While,  therefore,  in  our  present  argument  no  signifi- 
cance can  be  attached  to  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  we 
have  convincing  proof  from  other  sources  that  the  books 
of  Moses  were  not  unknown  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes.      The   narrative  of  the  schism   in    i    Kings   xii 


84  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

describes  in  detail  the  measures  taken  by  Jeroboam  in 
evident  and  avowed  antagonism  to  the  regulations  of  the 
Pentateuch  previously  established.  And  the  books  of 
the  prophets  Hosea  and  Amos,  who  exercised  their 
ministry  in  the  ten  tribes,  in  their  rebukes  and  denunci- 
ations, in  their  descriptions  of  the  existing  state  of  things 
and  its  contrast  with  former  times,  draw  upon  the  facts 
of  the  Pentateuch,  refer  to  its  laws,  and  make  use  of  its 
phrases  and  forms  of  speech. 

7.  An  additional  argument  of  great  force  can  be  drawn 
from  the  doctrinal  development  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  teaching  of  the  Pentateuch  is  elementary,  and  is  ex- 
panded in  the  later  Scriptures.  This  is  obviously  the 
case  in  regard  to  the  Messiah,  the  future  state,  angels, 
providential  retribution,  ritual  and  spiritual  worship. 
The  necessary  conclusion  is  that  the  Pentateuch  ante- 
dates the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  scheme  of  divine  instruction  more  fully  unfolded  in 
the  books  that  follow. 

These,  briefly  stated,  are  the  principal  arguments  of  a 
positive  nature  for  Moses's  authorship  of  the  books  which 
bear  his  name.  They  are  ascribed  to  him  by  unanimous 
and  unbroken  tradition  from  the  days  of  Moses  himself 
through  the  entire  period  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
from  that  onward.  This  had  the  inspired  and  author- 
itative sanction  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  our  Lord  himself.  It  corresponds  with  the  claim 
which  these  books  make  for  themselves,  corroborated  as 
this  is  by  their  adaptation  in  style  and  character  to  their 
alleged  origin,  and  by  the  evidence  offered  in  all  the 
subsequent  Scriptures  of  their  existence  and  recognized 
authority  from  the  time  of  their  first  promulgation,  and 
that  even  in  the  schismatical  kingdom  of  Jeroboam,  in 
spite  of  all  attempts  to  throw  off  its  control.  And  this 
is  confirmed  by  the  elementary  character  of  its  doctrinal 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  8$ 

contents  as  compared  with  those  of  the  other  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  particularly  with  the  teachings 
of  the  prophets. 

The  assaults  which  have  been  made  in  modern  times 
upon  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  have 
been  mainly  in  one  or  other  of  three  distinct  lines  or  in 
all  combined.  It  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  take  such  a 
cursory  view  of  them  as  our  few  remaining  moments  will 
permit. 

I.  It  is  affirmed  that,  from  a  literary  point  of  view, 
the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  the  work  of  any  one  writer, 
least  of  all  of  Moses,  but  that  it  is  of  composite  origin, 
formed  by  the  combination  of  different  writings  which 
were  themselves  produced  long  posterior  to  the  Mosaic 
age.  There  is  a  remarkable  alternation,  as  was  long  ago 
observed,  in  the  words  "  God  "  and  "  Lord,"  in  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis.  In  i,  i-ii,  3,  God  occurs  in  almost 
every  verse;  ii,  4-iii,  Lord  God  is  the  prevailing  name  ; 
in  chapter  iv,  Lord  ;  in  chapter  v,  God;  in  chapter  vi,  1-8, 
Lord  ;  vi,  9-22,  God  ;  vii,  1-5,  Lord  ;  and  so  on  in  alter- 
nate paragraphs.  It  has  accordingly  been  conjectured 
that  these  different  paragraphs  represent  distinct  writers, 
one  of  whom  was  in  the  habit  of  saying  "  God,"  or,  in 
Hebrew,  Elohim,  when  speaking  of  the  divine  Being, 
and  is  hence  called  the  Elohist ;  and  the  other,  who 
with  like  uniformity  uses  Lord  or  Jehovah,  is  called  the 
Jehovist.  The  prevalent  theory  with  eminent  European 
critics  is  that  there  were  two  Elohists,  a  Jehovist,  and  a 
so-called  Deuteronomist,  or  author  of  Deuteronomy  ; 
that  the  earliest  of  these  writers  wrote  six  or  seven  cen- 
turies after  the  time  of  Moses,  and  the  latest  perhaps  a 
thousand  years  after  the  same  date,  recording  such 
legends  and  traditions  as  had  up  to  that  time  been 
orally  preserved.  Others  admit  the  existence  of  such 
distinct  writers,  but  dispute  the  date  assigned  to  them. 


86  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

It  is  claimed  that  each  of  these  writers  has  his  own 
characteristic  style  and  mode  of  thought  and  range  of 
ideas,  by  which  the  paragraphs  and  clauses  belonging  to 
him  may  be  recognized  ;  and  when  these  are  singled  out 
and  put  together  they  form  as  many  distinct  narratives 
or  documents,  which  are  nearly  or  quite  continuous.  The 
original  sources  can  thus  be  reproduced,  which,  combined 
together  by  some  editor  or  redactor,  constitute  the  Pen- 
tateuch as  we  now  have  it. 

The  criteria  by  which  these  alleged  documents  are 
distinguished  are  of  a  subtle  and  complicated  character, 
and  the  conclusions  based  upon  them  are,  in  my  judg- 
ment, precarious.  In  the  brief  space  at  my  disposal  it 
would  be  impossible  to  state  intelligibly  the  reasons 
which  are  urged  in  favor  of  them  or  against  them.  But 
even  if  it  were  allowed  that  the  Pentateuch  was  com- 
piled, as  is  alleged,  from  antecedent  documents,  the  age 
of  these  documents  would  still  be  an  open  question. 
The  arguments  adduced  to  show  that  they  are  post- 
Mosaic  can  be  successfully  rebutted.  For  all  that  ap- 
pears, Moses  might  himself  have  been  the  compiler,  or 
the  compilation  might  have  been  made  under  his  super- 
intendence and  direction  ;  and  even  though  a  given 
paragraph  or  paragraphs  could  be  proved  to  be  post- 
Mosaic,  this  would  merely  demonstrate  that  such  para- 
graph or  paragraphs  could  not  have  belonged  to  the 
Pentateuch  as  it  came  from  the  pen  of  Moses,  not  that 
the  work  as  a  whole  did  not  proceed  from  him.  It  is  far 
easier  to  assume  that  some  slight  additions  may  here 
and  there  have  been  made  to  the  text  than  to  set  aside 
the  multiplied  proofs  that  the  Pentateuch  was  the  pro- 
duction of  Moses, 

2.  A  second  ground  for  contesting  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is  found  in  the  relation  sub- 
sisting between  the  three  codes  of  law  which  it  contained. 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  87 

It  is  maintained  that  these  are  so  diverse  in  character 
and  so  inconsistent  with  one  another  in  their  respective 
provisions  that  they  cannot  have  originated  at  any  one 
time  or  have  proceeded  from  any  one  legislator;  they 
must  belong  to  distinct  periods  and  represent  successive 
stages  in  the  growth  of  the  national  institutions.  The 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  as  the  briefest  and  simplest,  is 
the  most  primitive;  this  was  followed  by  the  Deutero- 
nomic  law,  which  is  more  fully  developed  ;  and  this  in 
turn  by  the  Priest  Code,  which  is  the  most  complicated 
and  elaborate  of  all,  and  hence  the  latest  in  the  series. 
The  Book  of  the  Covenant  makes  no  mention  of  a 
priesthood  as  a  separate  order  of  men  alone  authorized 
to  perform  sacred  functions.  The  Deuteronomic  Code 
speaks  of  priests  who  are  constantly  designated  "  the 
priests  the  Levites,"  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  the 
sacerdotal  prerogative  inhered  in  the  tribe  as  such,  and 
that  any  Levite  might  be  a  priest.  The  Priest  Code 
limits  the  sacerdotal  office  to  the  family  of  Aaron  ;  other 
Levites  were  simply  their  servants  and  attendants,  per- 
forming menial  functions  at  the  sanctuary,  but  not 
allowed  to  offer  sacrifice. 

In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  sacrifices  are  not  regu- 
lated by  statute,  but  are  the  free  spontaneous  gift  of  the 
offerer  unto  God  in  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  di- 
vine benefits.  In  Deuteronomy  certain  kinds  of  offerings 
are  specified,  but  witli  no  fixed  requisition  of  number  and 
quality,  and  these  are  to  be  joyously  partaken  of  by  the 
offerer  and  his  family  and  friends  before  the  Lord.  In 
the  Levitical  Code  additional  kinds  of  sacrifice  are  re- 
quired, not  mentioned  elsewhere,  and  everything  is 
rigorously  fixed  by  statute  ;  what  particular  animal  is  to 
be  offered  in  each  species  of  sacrifice  or  on  any  given  oc- 
casion, its  sex  and  age,  and  sometimes  even  its  color,  its 
accompaniments,  and  the  precise  ceremonies  to  be  ob- 


88  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

served,  are  specified.  The  whole  has  become  a  matter 
of  ritual,  an  affair  of  the  priests,  who  absorb  as  their  per- 
quisites v/hat  had  previously  fed  the  devotion  of  the 
offerer. 

All  this,  and  much  besides,  is  urged  as  indicating  the 
progressive  development  in  the  Israelitish  institutions 
as  represented  in  these  codes,  which  are  hence  regarded 
as  separated  by  long  intervals  of  time.  The  fallacy  lies 
in  putting  asunder  what  really  belongs  together.  All 
belong  to  one  comprehensive  and  harmonious  body  of 
law,  though  each  separate  portion  has  its  own  particular 
design  by  which  its  form  and  contents  are  determined. 
That  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  so  brief  and  elemen- 
tary in  matters  of  worship  is  because  of  its  preliminary 
character.  It  was  intended  simply  to  be  the  basis  of 
God's  covenant  with  Israel,  not  to  develop  in  detail  the 
duties  growing  out  of  that  covenant  and  relation.  That 
Deuteronomy  does  not  contain  the  minute  ceremonial 
requirements  to  be  found  in  Leviticus  is  no  indication 
that  the  latter  is  the  subsequent  development  of  a  more 
ritualistic  age.  It  is  simply  because  there  was  no  need 
of  repeating  details  which  had  already  been  sufficiently 
enlarged  upon  elsewhere.  The  Priest  Code  was  for  the 
guidance  of  the  priests  in  conducting  the  ritual  ;  Deu- 
teronomy for  the  people  at  large,  to  whom  the  great  law- 
giver addressed  his  earnest  warnings  and  exhortations 
as  he  was  on  the  point  of  being  taken  from  them.  The 
differences  and  discrepancies  alleged  in  these  laws  are  for 
the  most  part  capable  of  being  satisfactorily  harmonized. 
If  a  few  puzzles  remain  insoluble  by  us  they  are  not 
more  than  might  be  expected  in  matters  of  so  ancient 
date,  so  foreign  from  modern  ideas  and  usages,  and  in 
regard  to  which  we  are  so  imperfectly  informed.  If  we 
had  a  little  more  knowledge,  in  all  probability  our  diffi- 
culties would  vanish. 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  89 

3.  It  is  further  claimed  that,  as  appears  from  state- 
ments of  the  history,  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
not  in  fact  obeyed ;  whence  it  is  inferred  that  they  could 
not  have  been  in  existence.  It  is  admitted,  of  course, 
that  there  were  numerous  departures  from  God  and  re- 
peated open  violations  or  continued  neglect  of  his  laws. 
The  history  records  such  instances  again  and  again,  but 
it  brands  them  in  every  case  as  willful  transgressions 
against  God  and  his  known  law.  It  does  not  follow 
from  the  perpetration  of  murder  and  theft  that  such  acts 
were  not  regarded  as  criminal,  nor  that  the  sixth  and 
eighth  commandments  were  unknown.  When  it  is  over 
and  over  charged  that  the  people  forsook  the  Lord  and 
worshiped  Baal  and  Ashtaroth,  this  can  be  explained  in 
no  other  way  than  as  an  apostasy  from  Jehovah  to  these 
foreign  deities.  For  if  there  is  anything  that  is  obvious 
it  is  that  Jehovah  was  Israel's  God  from  the  beginning. 
Such  open  declensions  from  the  true  God  have  no  bearing, 
therefore,  on  the  subject  before  us.  They  were  plain 
offenses  against  known  and  acknowledged  obligation. 

But  it  is  affirmed  that  good  men  at  different  periods 
acted  habitually  at  variance  with  the  requirement  of  the 
ritual  laws  without  incurring  censure,  and  apparently 
without  being  sensible  that  they  were  doing  wrong  or 
transgressing  any  commandment. 

Thus,  while  the  law  required  that  sacrifices  should  be 
offered  only  at  the  sanctuary  and  only  by  priests— the 
sons  of  Aaron— repeated  mention  is  made  of  sacrifices 
being  offered  to  the  Lord,  and,  so  far  as  appears,  with 
acceptance,  though  it  was  elsewhere  than  at  the  sanctu- 
ary, and  the  offerer  was  not  a  descendant  of  Aaron. 
Thus  the  children  of  Israel  offered  sacrifice  at  Bochim 
(Judg.  ii,  5)  in  a  penitential  spirit  when  rebuked  for 
their  neglect  of  duty  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord.  Gideon 
built  two  altars  in  Ophrah,  and  offered  a  bullock  upon 


90  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

one  of  them  to  the  Lord  (Jud<^.  vi,  24-27)  ;  Manoah 
offered  a  kid  in  sacrifice  upon  a  rock  to  the  Lord  (Judg. 
xiii,  19).  This,  it  is  said,  is  in  direct  violation  of  the  law 
of  Deut.  xii,  6,  13,  14;  Num.  xviii,  7,  though  it  accords 
with  the  prescriptions  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  which 
recognizes  no  separate  order  of  priests  and  permits  sac- 
rifices (Exod.  XX,  24)  "  in  all  places  where  the  Lord  re- 
cords his  name."  It  is  hence  inferred  that  the  laws  of 
Deuteronomy  and  the  Priest  Code  were  not  in  existence, 
but  only  the  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

There  was,  however,  no  such  difference  between  these 
laws  as  has 'been  alleged.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant 
sanctions  an  altar  in  every  place  where  God  records  his 
name  ;  that  is,  wherever  he  reveals  himself  and  appoints 
a  place  of  worship  ;  but  this  by  no  means  contemplates 
a  multiplicity  of  altars  in  different  places  at  once,  or 
that  men  might  offer  sacrifice  at  any  place  at  their  own 
discretion.  This  law  was  enacted  upon  the  arrival  of 
Israel  at  Mount  Sinai,  and  when  no  sanctuary  had  yet 
been  instituted.  After  the  tabernacle  was  built  it  was 
the  ordinary  place  where  God  recorded  his  name,  and 
hence  that  became  under  the  terms  of  this  law  the  cus- 
tomary place  of  sacrifice.  Israel  was  then  in  the  wil- 
derness, journeying  from  place  to  place.  Whenever  they 
halted,  the  sanctuary  and  the  altar  were  set  up  and  sacri- 
fices were  offered.  Israel  had  not  various  altars  at  dif- 
ferent sanctuaries,  but  one  sanctuary  and  one  altar 
transported  with  them  as  they  pursued  their  way  to  the 
promised  land,  and  Deuteronomy  gave  direction  that 
when  God  had  given  them  rest  in  the  land  to  which  they 
were  going  the  tabernacle  should  be  no  longer  removed 
from  place  to  place,  but  sacrifices  should  be  offered  only 
at  the  place  which  the  Lord  should  choose.  Accord- 
ingly, when  the  conquest  of  Canaan  was  effected,  the 
tabernacle  was  set  up  at  Shiloh  (Josh,  xviii,  i),  and  that 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  9 1 

was  thenceforth  the  place  of  worship  for  all  Israel.  The 
laws  are,  therefore,  in  perfect  harmony  on  this  point. 
The  altar  at  the  tabernacle  was  the  one  appointed  spot 
for  sacrifice. 

How  then  are  the  sacrifices  at  Bochim  and  the  sacri- 
fices offered  by  Gideon  and  Manoah  to  be  accounted  for? 
Plainly,  by  the  extraordinary  circumstances  that  called 
them  forth.  On  all  ordinary  occasions  the  sanctuary 
was  the  place  for  sacrificial  worship,  and  this  was  to  be 
offered  only  by  the  priests  who  were  appointed  specially 
for  this  service.  But  when  God  manifested  himself  in 
an  extraordinary  manner  in  any  place  remote  from  the 
tabernacle,  that  place  became  for  the  time  a  sanctuary, 
and  the  person  to  whom  he  thus  manifested  himself  be- 
came for  the  time  a  priest.  God  must  be  worshiped 
wherever  he  appeared,  and  by  whomsoever  he  honored 
by  such  special  manifestation.  Accordingl}',  whenever 
throughout  the  Book  of  Judges  the  Lord  or  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  appeared  to  men  they  offered  sacrifice  on 
the  spot,  and  no  sacrifices  were  offered  elsewhere  than 
at  the  sanctuary  or  by  any  other  than  a  priest,  except 
upon  the  occasion  of  such  a  special  manifestation  of  the 
divine  presence. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  sacrifices  might  be 
offered  anywhere  in  the  presence  of  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant. The  ark  was  the  symbol  of  the  Lord's  presence. 
It  was  the  ark  in  the  tabernacle  which  made  the  latter  a 
holy  place,  and  when  the  ark  was  taken  from  tlie  taber- 
nacle it  was  still  the  throne  of  God,  who  dwelt  between 
the  cherubim.  Wherever  the  ark  was,  there  was  the 
symbol  of  God's  presence,  and  hence  when  the  ark  came 
back  from  the  Philistines  to  Beth-shemesh  (i  Sam.  vi,  14) 
sacrifices  were  offered  to  the  Lord.  And  so  when  David 
was  transporting  the  ark  to  Zion  oxen  and  fatlings  were 
sacrificed  before  it  (2  Sam.  vi,  13). 


92  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

But  how  is  it  that  we  find  the  prophet  Samuel  offering 
sacrifice  (i  Sam.  vii,  9,  17)  away  from  the  ark  and  taber- 
nacle, and  without  any  special  divine  manifestation  hav- 
ing been  made  ?  This  was,  again,  because  of  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  case.  In  consequence  of  the  sins 
of  Eli's  sons,  and  in  general  the  wickedness  of  both  priests 
and  people,  God  suffered  the  sacred  ark  to  be  taken 
captive  by  the  Philistines.  Suffering  the  symbol  of  his 
presence  to  be  thus  taken  away  was  significant  of  God's 
forsaking  Shiloh  and  forsaking  his  people.  The  Philis- 
tines were  conipelled  by  the  heavy  plagues  sent  upon 
them  to  return  the  ark,  but  the  ark  was  not  taken 
back  to  Shiloh.  It  was  hid  away  in  the  seclusion  of  a 
private  house ;  God  had  abandoned  the  sanctuary,  and 
there  was  no  legitimate  sanctuary  in  Israel  again  until 
the  ark  was  taken  to  Zion,  and  the  Lord  chose  that  for 
his  abode.  During  this  period  when  Israel  was  without 
a  lawful  sanctuary  Samuel,  as  God's  prophet  and  rep- 
resentative by  divine  authority,  assumed  the  functions 
of  the  degenerate  priesthood  and  sacrifices  were  offered 
on  high  places.  This  state  of  things  continued,  as  we 
are  told  (i  Kings  iii,  2),  until  the  temple  of  Solomon 
was  built,  when  that  became  God's  dwelling  place;  and 
as  that  was  the  spot  which  God  had  chosen  to  place  his 
name  there,  it  henceforth  was  the  only  lawful  place  of 
sacrifice.  We  do  indeed  read  after  that  of  offerings 
made  on  high  places,  but  they  were  illegal  and  were 
regarded  as  such,  and  pious  princes  endeavored  to  sup- 
press them  with  varying  success,  until  at  last  Hezekiah 
and,  more  effectually  still,  Josiah  succeeded  in  abolishing 
them. 

It  is  confessed,  accordingly,  that  sacrifices  were  in  re- 
peated instances  offered  elsewhere  than  at  the  sanctuary  ; 
but  whether  these  were  justified  by  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances, or    whether   they  were    irregular  and  con- 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN    OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  93 

demned  as  such,  they  cannot  disprove  the  existence  of 
the  law  restricting  sacrifice  to  one  common  altar  in  all 
ordinary  cases. 

It  has  been  maintained,  on  such  grounds  as  have  now 
been  recited,  that  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  was  unknown 
until  the  time  of  King  Josiah  ;  that  the  worship  on  high 
places  continued  until  his  reign;  that  the  prophetic  and 
priestly  party  then  became  convinced,  in  consequence  of 
the  idolatrous  taint  which  infected  the  worship  on  high 
places,  and  the  abuses  and  excesses  prevalent  there,  that 
the  purity  of  religion  demanded  that  they  should  be 
abolished  and  sacrifice  restricted  to  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem. Accordingly  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which 
strenuously  insists  upon  the  overthrow  of  the  high  places 
and  the  confining  of  sacrifice  to  the  place  which  the 
Lord  should  choose,  was  prepared  with  the  view  of  legal- 
izing this  measure  and  paving  the  way  for  its  enforce- 
ment. This  was  attributed  to  Moses  in  order  to  give  it 
a  higher  sanction.  A  copy  was  deposited  in  the  temple, 
where  it  was  found,  as  it  was  intended  that  it  should 
be,  by  Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  and  taken  to  the  king,  who 
carried  the  projected  reform  into  effect  (2  Kings  xxii,  8). 

The  Priest  Code,  it  is  alleged,  is  later  still.  That  was 
the  work  of  Ezra,  and  was  prepared  with  reference  to  the 
needs  of  the  period  after  the  exile  and  the  ritualistic 
spirit  which  then  prevailed.  This  is  the  book  of  the  law 
produced  by  Ezra  the  scribe  and  read  to  the  people,  as 
recorded  in  Neh.  viii,  to  which  they  solemnly  engaged  to 
render  obedience.  This  code,  however,  it  is  contended, 
was  not  complete  even  in  the  days  of  Ezra.  Additions 
were  subsequently  made  to  it,  and  continued  to  be  made 
for  some  time  thereafter.  The  day  of  atonement  is  not 
mentioned  in  either  Ezra  or  Nehemiah,  and  its  peculiar 
services  were  introduced  at  a  later  date.  The  altar  of 
jncense,  with  the  special  sacrecjness  attached  to  th^ 
7 


94  AXTI-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

offering  of  incense,  indicates,  it  is  said,  the  later  strata 
of  the  Priest  Code,  and  from  some  pecuHarities  in  the 
Greek  and  Samaritan  text  of  the  description  of  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  it  is  confidently  affirmed  that  changes 
and  alterations  in  the  Hebrew  text  continued  to  be  made 
until  after  the  time  when  those  versions  were  prepared. 

This  whole  theory  of  the  successive  origin  and  gradual 
growth  of  the  different  codes  of  the  Pentateuchal  law  is 
not  only  directly  in  the  face  of  the  explicit  statements 
of  the  Pentateuch  itself,  but  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  history  on  which  it  is  professedly  based.  Both  the 
book  found  in  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  and  that 
brought  forward  and  read  by  Ezra  after  the  exile  are 
expressly  declared  to  have  been  not  recent  productions, 
but  the  law  of  Moses.  The  assumption  that  laws  were 
fraudulently  attributed  to  the  great  legislator  is  gratui- 
tous and  without  foundation.  The  idea  that  such  a  fraud 
could  be  successfully  perpetrated  is  preposterous.  It  is 
utterly  out  of  the  question  that  a  body  of  laws  never 
before  heard  of  could  be  imposed  upon  the  people  as 
though  they  had  been  given  by  Moses  centuries  before, 
and  that  they  could  have  been  accepted  and  obeyed  by 
them,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  imposed  new 
and  serious  burdens,  set  aside  established  usages  to  which 
the  people  were  devotedly  attached,  and  conflicted  with 
the  interests  of  numerous  and  powerful  classes  of  the 
people.  And  it  further  involves  the  incongruity  of  as- 
suming that  three  codes,  which  were  at  variance  in  their 
provisions,  the  first  having  been  superseded  by  the  second, 
and  the  second  in  turn  superseded  by  the  third,  came 
subsequently  to  be  regarded  as  entirely  harmonious, 
and  as  one  body  of  law  which  had  been  united  from  the 
beginning  and  was  all  alike  obligatory. 

It  has  been  necessary  in  this  rapid  survey  to  condense 
into  a  single  lecture  what  woultl  require  volumes  for  its 


MOSAIC   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH.  95 

full  and  satisfactory  statement.  I  hope,  however,  that 
even  by  this  hasty  and  imperfect  presentation  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  showing  you  that  there  are  reasons  for  believing 
Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  which  cannot  be 
easily  set  aside,  and  that  the  objections  which  have  been 
urged  against  it  have  not  the  weight  that  has  sometimes 
been  attributed  to  them.  I  shall  be  gratified  if  enough 
has  been  said  to  stimulate  your  interest  in  the  subject 
and  lead  you  to  further  reading  and  study,  that  you  may 
acquaint  yourselves  with  it  more  thoroughly. 


g6  AXTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 


THE   BOOK  OF  JOB. 


BY   PROFESSOR   WILLIAM   G.    MOOREHEAD,   D.D., 
United  Presbyterian   Theological  Seminary,  Xcnia,  O. 

The  Book  of  Job  is,  in  many  respects,  one  of  the  most 
attractive  that  can  engage  our  attention.  The  person- 
ages introduced  into  it ;  the  mysterious  problems  it  dis- 
cusses, such  as  the  cause  and  intent  of  human  suffering; 
Satan's  place  and  agency  in  the  divine  government ;  the 
Lord's  inexpHcable  ways  with  the  righteous  and  wielded, 
all  invest  it  with  a  peculiar  interest.  Besides,  it  is  one 
of  the  noblest  poems  in  existence.  All  the  qualities  that 
the  highest  poetry  possesses  are  traceable  in  it.  If 
poetry  be  "  the  natural  language  of  intense  feeling,  ex- 
pressing itself  in  forms  of  corresponding  intensity,"  then 
Job  is  entitled  to  the  first  rank  ;  for  the  action  of  the 
poem  sweeps  through  every  emotion  of  the  soul,  strikes 
every  chord  of  the  heart.  As  a  work  of  art  alone  Job  is 
the  grandest  of  human  writings.  Men  to  whose  judg- 
ment in  matters  of  art  all  must  bow,  as  Goethe,  Carlyle, 
and  Froude,  have  set  this  book  in  the  first  place  of  liter- 
ary merit. 

Like  every  other  book  of  the  Bible,  Job  has  been  as- 
sailed by  the  newer  school  of  criticism.  The  date  so 
long  held  by  Christians,  the  historical  character,  and  the 
integrity  of  portions  of  its  contents  are  either  called  in 
question  or  summarily  rejected.  In  the  new  Bible  with 
which  it  is  proposed  to  enlighten  the  world  we  are  told 
that  various  colored  inks,  black,  blue,  green,  and  red,  will 
indicate  the  emendations  and  interpolations  with  which 


THE   BOOK   OF   JOB.  97 

it  is  alleged  the  book  abounds.  Accordingly,  the  un- 
learned Bible  reader  will  be  enabled  by  this  convenient 
plan  to  tell  at  a  glance  "  the  parallel  compositions  "  in 
blue,  "  the  polemical  interpolations  directed  against  the 
tendency  of  the  poem  "  in  green,  and  "  the  corrected  in- 
terpolations conforming  the  speeches  of  Job  to  the  spirit 
of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  retribution  "  in  red.* 

It  is  not  proposed  in  this  paper  to  enter  into  a  discus- 
sion of  the  various  questions  raised  by  modern  criticism 
respecting  this  book.  The  aim,  rather,  will  be  to  advance 
some  reason  why  we  accept  what  is  almost  scornfully 
called  the  "  traditional  view  ;  "  then  to  offer  some  re- 
marks on  the  structure  and  design  of  the  book. 

I.  Is  Job  A  Real  or  Fictitious  Character? 

His  actual  existence  is  denied  by  many.  Maimonides, 
of  the  twelfth  century,  was  among  the  first  to  avow  this 
opinion.  Michaelis,  Semler,  and  others  adopted  it.  In 
current  literature  it  is  very  confidently  asserted  that  the 
book  is  the  work  of  the  imagination,  and  it  is  argued  that 
fictitious  characters  do  not  affect  its  integrity  ;  they  rather 
further  the  writer's  purpose.  Of  course  there  are  weighty 
names  that  might  be  mentioned  on  the  other  side,  men 
of  first-rate  scholarship,  w4io  as  strongly  defend  the  his- 
torical credibility  of  the  book.  Professor  Lee  dwells  on 
the  extreme  circumstantiality  of  the  details — the  descrip- 
tion of  Job,  his  family,  his  property,  his  country,  his 
friends,  with  their  names  and  special  designations,  the 
genealogy  of  Elihu,  the  exact  account  of  the  feasting  of 
his  sons,  the  particular  mention  of  the  plunderers,  and 
justly  concludes,  "These  all,  with  a  variety  of  other 
points  of  the  like  nature,  mark  rather  the  history  than 
the  parable."  Furthermore,  it  is  worth  while  to  recall 
the  statement  of  Ewald,  a  statement  reaffirmed  by  that 
great  archaeologist  of  the  British  Museum,  George  Smith, 

*  ludcpL-iid.iit,  May  25,  1893. 


98  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

that  the  ancient  peoples  had  true  historical  grounds  for 
all  they  recorded  ;  that  they  never  invented  pure  fiction, 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term.  Rawlinson  concurs, 
and  adds  that  a  late  fictitious  writer  could  not  have  so 
accurately  reproduced  patriarchal  times.  We  have  the 
very  best  of  reasons  for  receiving  the  record  of  the  book 
as  historically  true,  namely,  Holy  Scripture.  The  Lord, 
by  Ezekiel,  says:  "Though  these  three  men,  Noah, 
Daniel,  and  Job,  were  in  it,  they  should  deliver  but  their 
own  souls  by  their  righteousness,  saith  the  Lord  God  " 
(Ezek.  xiv,  14,  20).  The  subject  is  the  certainty  of 
national  punishment  for  national  sins.  So  sure  is  the 
chastisement  to  be  inflicted,  that  men  eminent  for  their 
righteousness  cannot  avert  it.  The  Lord  selects  three 
men  from  ages  far  apart  and  from  the  greatest  diversity 
of  circumstances — Noah,  a  preacher  of  righteousness ; 
Daniel,  an  exile  at  Babylon,  yet  loyal  to  God  and  true ; 
and  Job,  though  bereft  of  all  earthly  comforts,  smitten 
of  God  and  afflicted,  holding  fast  his  integrity.  Obe- 
dient, steadfast,  and  patient  were  all  the  three.  Yet, 
saith  the  unchangeable  God,  even  these,  the  best  of  my 
servants,  could  not  turn  judgment  away  from  a  guilty 
land.  Noah's  righteousness  did  not  prevent  the  flood  ; 
Daniel's  splendid  fidelity  did  not  exempt  either  himself 
or  his  fellow-exiles  from  suffering,  and  Job's  unswerving 
integrity  did  not  shield  him  from  unexampled  tribula- 
tion. 

This  testimony  is  conclusive.  If  Noah  and  Daniel  are 
historical  persons,  so  is  Job.  God  invests  him  with  the 
same  qualities  of  righteousness  and  faithfulness  which  he 
ascribes  to  the  other  two.  If  Job  is  a  myth,  what  are 
Noah  and  Daniel?  If  all  three  are  fabulous,  why  not 
Abraham,  Jacob,  Moses,  David — in  short,  the  whole  list 
of  Old  Testament  worthies? 

The  apostle  James  (v,  11)  bears  a  still  more  striking 


THE   BOOK   OF   JOB.  99 

witness  to  the  reality  of  Job's  existence:  "Behold,  we 
call  them  blessed  which  endured  :  ye  have  heard  of  the 
patience  of  Job,  and  have  seen  the  end  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  the  Lord  is  full  of  pity,  and  merciful  "  (R.  V.).  He 
speaks  of  "  the  patience  of  Job  ; "  that  is,  of  his  endurance 
and  steadfastness  amid  all  his  fiery  trial,  and  he  com- 
memorates "  the  end  of  the  Lord  ;  "  that  is,  the  aim  and 
outcome  of  the  patriarch's  afflictions,  namely,  the  crown- 
ing blessing  with  which  the  Lord  doubled  to  his  servant 
his  original  plenty.  Here  is  an  additional  attestation  to 
the  reality  of  Job's  existence;  but  here  is  much  more: 
here  is  the  indorsement  by  an  inspired  apostle  of  the 
main  facts  of  his  life ;  here  is  the  seal  set  to  the  truth 
of  Job's  endurance  through  a  long  course  of  uncommon 
sufferings  and  of  his  triumphant  issue  out  of  them.  Job's 
experience,  according  to  James,  is  an  illustrious  proof  of 
the  good  wrapped  up  in  divinely  appointed  afflictions 
and  of  the  Lord's  supreme  pity  and  tenderness.  Care- 
fully examined,  the  testimonies  of  Ezekiel  and  James 
point  to  something  more  than  the  mere  historical  fact 
that  Job  really  lived.  It  is  absolutely  inconceivable  that 
thej^  should  have  referred,  in  the  way  they  have  done,  to 
Job's  character  and  history,  if  that  character  were  not  in 
its  main  features  genuine,  if  that  history  were  not  essen- 
tially true.  The  grounds,  therefore,  for  believing  in 
the  truthfulness  of  the  record  contained  in  this  book 
are  the  witness  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  and  the  apostle 
James. 

n.  The  Age  in  which  Job  Lived. 

Usher's  chronology  fixes  at  a  period  shortly  before  the 
exodus  from  Egypt.  If  the  book  were  contemporary 
with  that  event,  or  subsequent  "to  it,  w^e  would  naturally 
expect  to  find  some  reference  to  it,  particularly  in  a  dis- 
cussion in  which  human  suffering  and  God's  providence 
are  the  theme.     That  Job   lived  in  patriarchal  times   is 


lOO  AXTI-IIIGIIER    CRITICISM. 

altogether  probable.      Only  the   briefest  outline  of  the 
evidence  in  support  of  this  proposition  can  be  given. 

1.  The  style  is  archaic,  and  finds  a  parallel  only  in  the 
oldest  poetry  of  the  Bible,  as  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  song 
of  Deborah,  and  the  earliest  Psalms.  Canon  Cook  writes: 
"  Firm,  compact,  sonorous  as  the  ring  of  a  pure  metal, 
severe  and  at  times  rugged,  yet  always  dignified  and  ma- 
jestic, the  language  belongs  to  a  period  when  thought 
was  slow  but  profound  and  intensely  concentrated." 

2.  The  manners,  customs,  institutions,  and  general 
mode  of  life  described  in  the  book  are  such  as  belong 
especially  to  the  times  which  are  commonly  called  "  patri- 
archal." The  pastoral  descriptions  clearly  belong  to  the 
ancient  days,  while  the  city  life  is  exactly  that  of  the 
earliest  settled  communities.  Rawlinson  says :  "The 
civilization,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  is  of  the  primitive 
type,  with  rock  inscriptions,  mining  such  as  was  practiced 
by  the  Egyptians  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  from  B.  C. 
2000,  great  buildings,  ruined  sepulchers,  tombs  watched 
over  by  sculptured  figures  of  the  dead.  The  historical 
allusions  touch  nothing  of  a  recent  date;  they  include 
no  mention — not  the  faintest  hint — of  any  of  the  great 
events  of  Israelite  history,  nor  the  Exodus,  nor  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Red  Sea,  nor  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai, 
much  less  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  nor  of  the  stirring 
times  of  the  judges  and  the  first  great  kings  of  Israel."  He 
concludes  that  the  book  was  written  long  before  any  of 
these  events. 

3.  The  sacrifice  which  Job  offered  for  his  children 
(i,  5),  and  that  of  his  three  friends  (xlii,  8),  was  the 
patriarchal  burnt  offering,  which  combined  in  it  the  es- 
sential idea  of  the  sin  sacrifice  afterward  appointed  by 
Moses. 

4.  The  duration  of  Job's  life  is  proof  that  he  lived  in 
patriarchal  times.      He  survived  his  sore  trial  one  hun- 


THE   BOOK   OF  JOB.  lOI 

dred  and  forty  years  (xlii,  i6).  He  must  have  been  of 
considerable  age  when  his  calamities  came  upon  him,  for 
he  was  the  father  of  ten  children,  who  seem  at  the  time 
to  have  been  grown.  He  could  be  hardly  less  than  fifty, 
perhaps  sixty  or  seventy,  when  his  reverses  came  on  him ; 
and  his  entire  life  must  have  been  two  hundred  years  at 
least.  Men  had  ceased  to  live  to  this  age  long  before 
the  time  of  Moses.  Perah  lived  two  hundred  and  five 
years,  Abraham  one  hundred  and  seventy-five,  Moses 
one  hundred  and  twenty.  Job  lived  nearer  Abraham, 
probably,  than  Moses. 

5.  An  ingenious  attempt  has  been  made  to  fix  the  date 
of  Job's  trial  by  astronomical  calculation,  founded  on 
the  mention  of  certain  constellations  in  chapters  ix,  9; 
xxxviii,  31,  32.  Three  mathematicians,  Gouget,  Ducou- 
tant,  and  Binkley,  calculating  by  the  precession  of  the 
equinoxes,  arrived  almost  at  the  same  date,  there  being 
but  forty-six  years  difference  between  them,  namely,  B.  C. 
2176  and  B.  C.  2130.  There  may  be  error  in  these  cal- 
culations, as  it  is  confessedly  difficult  to  identify  the 
constellations  referred  to  ;  still,  it  is  remarkable  that  three 
independent  investigators  should  reach  almost  the  same 
results.  From  the  facts  now  adduced  the  conclusion  of 
Canon  Rawlinson  seems  legitimate,  that  the  Book  of  Job 
is  more  ancient  than  any  other  of  the  Bible,  unless  we 
except  that  of  Genesis. 

The  question  of  its  authorship  cannot  be  settled.  It 
has  been  ascribed  to  Job  himself,  to  Elihu,  Solomon, 
Ezra,  and  Moses.  There  is  something  very  attractive  in 
the  view  that  while  Moses  sojourned  in  Midian  he  com- 
piled this  book  as  well  as  Genesis,  but  it  cannot  be 
verified.  Its  anonymous  character,  however,  does  not 
invalidate  it.  The  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  likewise  unknown,  yet  no  one  would  venture 
to  cast  a  doubt  on  its  canonicity.     I  am  strongly  inclined 


I02  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

to  the  belief  that  Paul  wrote  that  epistle,  yet  I  do  not 
forget  that  Origen,  who  lived  within  two  centuries  of 
John,  the  last  survivor  of  the  apostles,  said,  "  The  author 
of  Hebrews  is  known  only  to  God." 

III.  Structure  of  the  Book. 

It  consists  of  three  parts:  Part  I.  Introductory  narra- 
tive in  prose  (i,  ii).  Part  II.  The  poem  (iii-xlii,  6).  Part  III. 
Concluding  narrative  in  prose  (xlii,  7-17).  A  broad 
analysis  of  the  poem  is  the  following:  i.  Job's  mono- 
logue (iii).  2.  The  great  debate  (iv-xxxi).  It  consists 
of  three  rounds.  Each  of  the  comforters  speaks  three 
times,  save  Zophar,  who  speaks  but  twice,  and  Job  re- 
plies to  each  in  turn.  3.  The  addresses  of  Elihu  (xxxii- 
xxxvii).  4.  The  Lord's  appearance  on  the  scene,  and 
the  blessed  result  (xxxviii-xlii,  6).  It  will  be  observed 
that  in  form  the  poem  is  quite  regular  and  simple.  Its 
order  is  natural  throughout.  And  yet  it  is  replete  with 
art.  With  admirable  skill  and  great  force  the  problem 
is  introduced,  the  frightful  disproportion  of  happiness 
and  misery  in  this  world.  The  sad  plight  of  Job,  the 
losses  he  sustains,  the  disease  that  consumes  his  flesh  and 
racks  his  frame,  the  agonizing  wail  he  at  length  pours 
forth,  the  dark  questions  that  haunt  his  mind,  the  black 
doubts  that  assail  his  faith — these  in  awful  language  are 
set  before  the  three  comforters  with  a  masterly  hand. 
And  the  comforters  are  powerless  to  solve  the  problem. 
The  great  debate  ends  in  failure.  The  splendid  mono- 
logue of  Elihu  follows,  who,  while  he  does  not  solve  the 
problem,  pours  a  flood  of  light  on  the  mystery  of  suffer- 
ing. God  finally  intervenes,  Job  is  set  right,  and  rich 
blessing  ensues. 

IV.  The  Design  of  the  Book. 

It  appears  to  us  to  be  threefold:  i.  To  refute  the 
slander  of  Satan.  2.  To  discuss  the  question  of  suffering, 
particularly  the  suffering  of  the  righteous.     3.  To  reveal 


THE    BOOK   OF   JOB.  IO3 

Job  to  himself,  and  so  prepare  him  for  the  reception  of 
the  blessing  which  God  purposed  to  bestow  upon  him. 

Touching  Job's  nationality  little  is  known.  There  is 
no  account  of  his  ancestry,  no  mention  of  his  parentage. 
He  comes  before  us  in  mature  manhood,  whence  no  one 
knows  (even  the  location  of  Uz  is  conjectural) ;  he  dis- 
appears in  the  grave  when  his  fitful  life,  with  its  strange 
vicissitudes,  is  over.  This  is  characteristic.  It  is  the 
problem  God  keeps  before  us — the  mystery  of  provi- 
dence, the  malice  of  Satan,  the  good  inclosed  in  afflic- 
tions, not  so  much  the  man. 

Job's  prosperity  for  a  time  was  uninterrupted.  In  his 
own  striking  imagery  he  washed  his  steps  with  butter, 
and  the  rock  poured  him  out  rivers  of  oil  (xxix,  6).  His 
personal  character  is  thus  described:  "And  that  man 
was  perfect  and  upright,  and  one  that  feared  God,  and 
eschewed  evil"  (i,  1,8).  He  was  honest  and  guileless. 
No  duplicity  either  toward  God  or  man  was  found  in 
him.  He  was  happy  in  his  relations  with  God,  happy  in 
his  family,  possessed  of  princely  wealth,  loved  and  trusted 
by  his  fellows  ;  in  short,  one  of  the  most  devout  and  pow- 
erful sheiks  in  the  East.  But  in  a  day  his  prosperity  ended, 
and  catastrophes  the  most  appalling  in  rapid  and  dread- 
ful succession  came  upon  him. 

How  are  we  to  explain  the  patriarch's  reverses  ?  This 
leads  us  to  the  contemplation  of  the  first  design  of  the 
book,  namely,  to  prove  once  for  all  that  loyalty  to  God 
is  not  founded  on  the  temporal  advantages  that  piety  se- 
cures; that  selfishness  is  not  the  secret  of  the  allegiance 
of  God's  people  to  him. 

Satan's  slander  against  Job,  i,  9-1 1  ;  ii,  4,  5.  The  sin- 
gular spectacle  is  presented  of  the  prince  of  darkness 
appearing  in  the  train  of  the  Most  High.  But  Satan  is 
there  for  a  definite  purpose,  namely,  to  accuse  and  ma- 
lign (Rev.  xii,    10).     One  question  he  starts,  as  full  of 


to4  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

subtlety  as  of  malice:  "Doth  Job  serve  for  naught?" 
"  Is  not  the  allegiance  which  receives  such  direct  and 
tangible  rewards  only  a  refined  form  of  selfishness?  His 
fealty  is  mercenary,  his  attachment  is  for  hire."  "  He 
serveth  not  God,  but  himself."  And  Satan  boldly 
asserts  that  if  those  external  blessings  were  with- 
drawn Job's  allegiance  would  be  cast  off — "  he  will  curse 
thee  to  thy  face."  One  main  feature  of  the  problem 
which  the  book  discusses  is  thus  distinctly  propounded  : 
Can  goodness  exist  irrespective  of  reward?  Can  the  fear 
of  God  live  when  every  inducement  is  withdrawn  ?  Is 
allegiance  to  God  based  on  the  love  and  knowledge  of 
him,  or  does  it  exist  only  for  the  advantages  it  secures, 
the  immunities  it  enjoys?  The  problem  is  one  of  infi- 
nite moment ;  for  if  the  love  and  grace  of  God  only  serve 
to  produce  a  refined  selfishness,  then  his  whole  work  is 
abortive,  and  God  is  unable  to  retrieve  the  ruin  of  sin. 

There  is  no  method  by  which  these  slanderous  accu- 
sations can  be  more  effectively  silenced  than  by  the  re- 
moval of  those  things  on  account  of  which  the  adversary 
asserted  Job's  fidelity  depended.  And  so  the  servant  of 
God  was  tested  to  the  uttermost.  The  trial  was  twofold. 
First,  his  wealth  and  his  children  were  suddenly  snatched 
away  from  him.  The  book  clearly  teaches  that  it  was 
through  Satanic  agency,  in  the  mysterious  government 
of  God,  that  these  dreadful  losses  were  sustained.  But 
out  of  this  furnace  Job  issues  without  the  smell  of  fire 
on  his  garments  (i,  22):  "In  all  this  Job  sinned  not, 
nor  charged  God  foolishly."  In  this  assault  Satan  was 
forbidden  to  touch  Job's  person  (i,  12).  He  next  affirms 
that  Job  will  give  up  all  for  his  life  (ii,  4).  That  this  is 
also  a  lie  the  devil  knows  perfectly  well.  Myriads  of 
God's  dear  people  have  gone  to  the  worst  forms  of  death 
for  the  name  and  the  love  of  Christ.  Permission,  how- 
ever, is  given  up  to  the  point  only  this  side  of  death,  and 


THE   BOOK   OF  JOB.  I05 

he  is  smitten  with  a  loathsome  disease — elephantiasis  it 
is  thought  to  have  been,  a  disease  believed  by  many  in 
the  East  to  be  the  judgment  of  God.  The  patriarch  sat 
down  on  the  ash  heap  in  unspeakable  desolation,  anguish, 
and  woe,  bereft  of  property,  children,  health  ;  his  wife 
advising  him  to  renounce  the  God  whom  he  had  served 
so  long.  Will  he  finally  break  with  God?  Is  there  any- 
thing left  to  keep  him  faithful  ?  Blessed  be  God  for  sus- 
taining and  conquering  grace !  Out  of  the  final  trial 
Job  comes  forth  triumphantly :  "  In  all  this  did  not  Job 
sin  with  his  lips"  (ii,  10). 

It  is  proved,  therefore,  once  for  all,  and  never  more  to 
be  disputed,  that  Job's  loyalty  is  not  grounded  in  selfish- 
ness, that  true  piety  lives  when  all  external  advantages 
are  withdrawn,  and  that  God's  grace  is  more  than  a 
match  for  Satan's  malice  and  the  deep-rooted  egotism  of 
sin.  Thus,  one  prime  object  of  the  book  stands  disclosed. 
But  God  had  other  and  greater  ends  in  the  sufferings  of 
his  servant,  which  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  It  was  not 
needful  to  send  Job  to  such  a  terrible  school  of  affliction 
merely  to  prove  the  devil  a  liar.  He  was  that  from  the 
beginning  (John  viii,  44).    There  must  be  ulterior  designs. 

Note  how  prominently  Satan  is  in  the  earlier  chapters 
of  the  book.  We  know  that  he  was  the  real  instigator 
of  Job's  woes.  Probably  the  patriarch  himself  did  not  ; 
and  so  all  the  more  inexplicable  and  mysterious  his  suf- 
ferings must  have  appeared  to  him  and  his  friends,  the 
comforters.  Now,  some  things  respecting  this  great  evil 
spirit  we  gather  from  this  inspired  record,  i.  His  per- 
sonality. Satan  is  no  myth.  Every  attribute,  quality, 
action,  mark,  and  sign  which  can  indicate  personality  are 
ascribed  to  him  with  a  precision  of  language  which  refuses 
to  be  explained  away.  If  we  attempt  to  interpret  this 
and  the  like  Scripture  as  only  meaning  the  principle  of 
evil  and  not  a  person,  then  there  is  an  end  to  all  rules  of 


Io6  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

fixed  thought,  and  the  Bible  may  mean  anything  and 
everything  we  please.  2.  His  power.  It  is  simply  tre- 
mendous. He  brought  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  the 
sheep  (electricity) ;  the  storm  from  the  desert,  which 
crushed  the  house  where  the  young  people  \vere  feast- 
ing; that  is,  he  can,  when  permitted,  waeld  the  forces  of 
nature  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  wicked  designs. 
3.  His  enmity  is  even  greater  than  his  power.  He  pur- 
sues his  evil  ends  with  tireless  energy  and  sleepless 
vigilance.  4.  Still,  he  is  subordinate.  He  can  afflict 
only  so  far  as  and  when  God  for  inscrutable  purposes 
permits  him.  There  was  "  a  hedge  "  about  Job  through 
which  Satan  could  not  break.  No  doubt,  like  the  lion 
he  is  (i  Peter  v,  8),  he  traveled  round  and  round  that 
hedge,  but  always  on  the  outside.  "  He  can  go  only  the 
length  of  his  chain." 

It  is  noteworthy  that  nearly  all  the  revelation  we  have 
of  this  great  evil  spirit  is  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
Rarely  is  he  mentioned  in  the  Old — in  Eden,  in  Job, 
David,  Joshua  the  high  priest.  God  delayed  the  full 
disclosure  of  him  to  later  times,  and  gave  him  twenty- 
eight  names,  which  fully  describe  liim. 

V.  Other  Features  of  the  Book. 

The  other  great  features  of  the  poem  are  now  to  be 
pointed  out.  These  are  two:  the  meaning  of  human 
suffering,  particularly  the  suffering  of  the  righteous;  and 
the  revelation  of  Job  to  himself.  The  first  is  the  theme  of 
the  great  debate  (chapters  iv-xxxi).  The  second  is  trace- 
able through  the  entire  poem  from  chapter  iii  to  chapter 
xlii,  and  is  this :  that  the  patriarch,  with  all  his  pre- 
eminent excellencies,  secretly  cherished,  and  probably 
unwittingly  cherished,  somewhat  of  self-righteousness,  a 
kind  of  religious  pride  which  marred  his  lovely  character 
and  hindered  the  blessing  God  would  bestow  upon  him  ; 
and  this,  cost  what  it  might,  must  be  cut  up  by  the  roots. 


THE   BOOK   OF   JOB.  10/ 

1.  Job's  first  monologue,  iii.  It  is  unexampled  for  its 
expression  of  anguish  and  for  its  pathos.  What  language 
is  there,  and  what  imagery  !  He  curses  his  birthday  and 
hurls  anathemas  upon  his  life ;  asks  that  God  may  ex- 
punge that  day  from  his  calendar  of  time,  that  it  may  be 
frightened  with  horrible  sounds  and  chased  forever  by 
devouring  death,  that  in  eternity  it  may  be  a  sunless  day 
and  a  starless  night.  A  similar  instance  of  the  effect  of 
accumulated  sorrows  is  found  in  the  life  of  Jeremiah 
(xx,  14-18).  It  does  not  appear  that  the  friends  had 
uttered  a  word.  Job  opened  the  dialogue.  They  sat  in 
total  silence,  covered  with  dust,  gazing  on  a  grief  too 
profound  for  them  to  reach.  It  is  impossible  to  read 
this  monologue,  touching  as  it  is,  and  not  feel  that  one 
who  had  learned  in  any  measure  to  say,  "  Thy  will  be 
done,"  could  ever  curse  his  day.  He  broke  down  in  the 
very  thing  for  which  he  was  noted,  patience.  But  let 
us  remember  that  Job  did  not  know  himself.  He  was 
complacently  resting  in  his  *'  integrity,"  which  is  another 
name  for  self-righteousness.  There  was  root  of  bitter- 
ness in  him  of  which  he  seems  to  have  been  ignorant,  but 
which  must  be  eradicated.  He  had  to  learn  the  lesson 
to  which  all  the  saints  are  set  down,  namely,  that  the 
egotism  of  nature  is  offensive  to  God ;  that  there  is  no 
confidence  to  be  put  in  the  flesh.  And  so  one  aim  of  the 
book  is  to  reveal  Job  to  himself  and  thus  deliver  him_ 
from  the  evil  his  afflictions  were  meant  to  remove.  But 
let  it  be  remembered  that  he  curses  his  day,  not  his  God, 
as  Satan  would  have  him  do.  He  curses  the  day  of  his 
natural  birth,  not  the  day  of  his  new  birth.  Amid  all 
his  doubts  and  darkness  never  for  a  moment  does  his 
faith  in  God  waver — "  Though  he  slay  me,  yet  will  I  trust 
in  him,"  is  his  magnificent  resolution. 

2.  The  debate.     It  consists  of  three  rounds.     Each  of 
the  three  philosophers  speaks  three  times,  save  Zophar, 


I08  ANTI-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

who  speaks  but  twice,  and  Job  replies  to  each  in  suc- 
cession (chapters  iv-xxxi). 

The  first  round,  chapters  iv-xiv.  The  question  is  pro- 
pounded by  Eliphaz  very  skillfully  and  strongly  (iv,  v). 
God  blesses  the  just,  punishes  the  unjust.  The  proposi- 
tion of  Eliphaz  is  this  :  He  that  sins  must  suffer;  as  Job 
is  a  dreadful  sufferer  he  must  be  guilty  of  some  grievous 
sin.  Job  replies  (vi-vii),  complaining  that  theie  is  no 
adequate  cause  for  his  afflictions ;  that  God  treats  him  as 
if  an  irrational  being,  a  sea  or  a  sea-monster.  His  plaint 
resembles  that  of  chapter  iii,  only  more  subdued  and 
humble.  Bildad  follows  in  the  same  strain  of  Eliphaz 
(viii) :  "If  thou  wert  pure  and  upright,  surely  now  he 
would  awake  for  thee;"  and  since  he  does  not  some- 
thing must  be  frightfully  wrong. 

Job  stoutly  resists  the  imputation  and  appeals  to  God, 
who  knows  that  he  is  not  wicked,  as  charged  (ix,  x). 
Zophar  urges  that  he  is  certainly  guilty,  and  exhorts 
him  to  repentance  (xi).  Job's  reply  (xii-xiv)  is  remarka- 
ble. He  shows  how  the  wicked  often  prosper,  how  God 
does  as  he  pleases  with  great  and  small,  and  appeals 
from  them  to  God. 

In  the  second  round  (chapters  xv-xxi)  the  comforters 
increase  in  the  severity  of  their  tone  and  urge  with  con- 
siderable vehemence  that  it  is  the  wicked  who  are 
scourged,  not  the  righteous,  and  assail  the  integrity  of 
Job,  intimating  broadly  that  he  is  guilty  of  some  secret 
sin,  some  colossal  crime.  Zophar,  the  most  impetuous 
and  severe  of  all,  insinuates  that  there  is  hypocrisy  in 
the  case,  that  God  has  at  length  torn  the  mask  from  the 
false  face,  and  he  now  stands  revealed  in  his  true  charac- 
ter. The  patriarch  refutes  the  reasoning,  proves  that  the 
wicked  often  grow  old  and  prosper,  that  apparently  God 
treats  the  good  and  the  bad  alike  in  this  life,  and  the  dark 
doubts  which  the  psalmist  felt  (Psalm  Ixxiii)  haunt  and 


THE   BOOK   OF   JOB.  IO9 

harass  his  mind.  With  righteous  indignation  he  flings 
from  him  the  unworthy  innuendos  of  the  comforters  and 
accuses  them  of  intensifying  his  misery.  After  giving  his 
wonderful  confession  of  faith  (xix,  25-27),  he  points  his 
argument  with  these  telHng  words:  "  But  ye  should  say, 
Why  persecute  we  him,  seeing  the  root  of  the  matter  is 
found  in  me  ?     Be  ye  afraid  of  the  sword." 

In  the  third  round  (chapters  xxii-xxvi)  the  comfort- 
ers are  turned  into  headlong  accusers.  Invective  now 
takes  the  place  of  calm  reasoning;  and  Job,  instead  of 
getting  better,  grows  worse,  and  even  yearns  to  appear 
before  the  throne  of  God,  declaring  that  if  he  could  do  so 
he  would  order  his  cause  before  him,  and  fill  his  mouth 
with  arguments  (xxiii,  3,  4).  "  Job's  disputing  with  God 
is  as  terrible  as  it  is  pitiable.  It  is  terrible  because  he 
uplifts  himself,  Titan-like,  against  God  ;  and  pitiable  be- 
cause God,  against  whom  he  fights,  is  not  the  God  he  has 
known,  but  a  phantom  which  his  temptation  has  pre- 
sented to  his  dim  vision." 

3.  TJie  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  disputants.  The  mis- 
take of  the  comforters  was  this :  They  insisted  that  God 
was  dealing  with  Job  retributivcly.  They  labored  to 
convict  him  of  high-handed  wickedness.  They  hint  again 
and  again  that  if  all  were  told  nothing  would  be  too  bad 
to  impute  to  him.  "  Who  ever  perished,  being  innocent  ? 
or  where  were  the  righteous  cut  off?  "  is  the  foundation 
of  their  reasoning.  They  totally  failed  to  discover  the 
true  cause  for  his  suffering.  They  applied  many  princi- 
ples of  the  moral  government  of  God  to  the  wrong  case  ; 
and  hence  their  argument  only  served  to  exasperate  him. 
No  wonder  he  reproached  them  for  their  cruelty  and  in 
the  bitterness  of  an  insulted  character  and  wounded 
spirit  covered  them  with  scorn  and  contempt.  Nor  was 
Job  less  wrong.  He  insisted  that  God  acted  arbitrarily  ; 
that,  having  the  power  to  do  as  he  pleased  with  him,  he 


no  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

did  so.  Because  he  was  not  guilty  of  any  crime,  of 
notorious  sin,  as  the  philosophers  sought  to  make  out, 
he  infers  that  his  affliction  is  without  adequate  grounds, 
that  it  is  altogether  disproportionate  to  his  case,  and 
therefore  unjust  and  arbitrary. 

VI.  The  Ministry  of  Elihu. 

A  new  section  of  the  book  opens  with  the  discourse 
of  Elihu.  Here  writers  who  see  no  more  in  Job  than  a 
soul  at  war  with  itself  are  embarrassed  to  find  an  ade- 
quate explanation.  Some  see  no  more  in  his  speeches 
than  a  repetition  of  the  ideas  of  Eliphaz  and  his  friends  ; 
and  as  the  patriarch  had  fully  answered  them  he  is  now 
silent.  Others  hold  that  Elihu  adds  nothing  to  the  prog- 
ress of  the  argument,  and  betrays  "  not  the  faintest 
conception  of  the  real  cause  of  Job's  sufferings."  Others 
still  hold  that  this  section  forms  no  genuine  part  of  the 
book,  that  it  is  an  interpolation  of  a  later  date.  The 
last  mentioned  view  encounters  the  inconvenient  fact  that 
the  section  in  question  is  found  in  every  copy  of  the 
extant  Hebrew  text,  and  in  all  the  ancient  versions,  for 
example,  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  Syriac,  etc.  Let  us  see 
whether  Elihu  really  adds  to  the  argument  of  the  book 
or  not. 

I.  His  wrath  tuas  kindled.  We  are  told  his  wrath  was 
kindled  against  Job  because  he  justified  himself  rather 
than  God  ;  against  his  three  friends,  also,  because  they 
found  no  answer,  yet  condemned  Job(xxxii,  2,  3).  There 
is  the  whole  preceding  discussion  in  a  nutshell.  If  the 
comforters  cannot  answer  Job  why  should  they  con- 
demn him?  If  reason  and  argument  are  on  his  side 
there  should  be  no  condemnation.  Moreover,  Job's  justi- 
fying himself  is  virtually  to  condemn  God.  The  Lord 
was  dealing  with  his  servant  in  fatherly  chastisement, 
that  his  own  gracious  purposes  might  be  accomplished  in 
him.     So  lonsf  as  he  resisted  and  rebelled,  and  counted 


THE   BOOK   OF   JOB.  Ill 

his  treatment  as  unjust  and  arbitrary,  God's  ends  were 
defeated  and  his  ways  condemned.  This  principle  is 
evermore  true  :  when  we  justify  ourselves  we  condemn 
God;  when  we  justify  God  we  condemn  ourselves. 

2.  Elihu  rested  his  appeal  to  Job  on  the  revealed  truth 
of  God.  It  is  described  in  terms  appropriate  to  the 
times :  "  I  said,  Days  should  speak,  and  multitude  of 
years  should  teach  wisdom.  But  there  is  a  spirit  in  man, 
and  the  breath  (or  the  spiration)  of  the  Almighty  giveth 
them  understanding "  (xxxii,  7,  8).  The  friends  had 
spoken  many  true  things,  but  not  the  truth.  Experience, 
tradition,  observation — such  as  the  comforters  had  em- 
ployed— were  totally  inadequate  to  the  case  in  hand. 
God  alone  is  competent  to  settle  such  a  question  as  this. 

3.  His  argument  on  sufferings.  God's  ways  of  dealing 
with  men  are  twofold  :  (i)  By  mysterious  communica- 
tions. ''  God  speaketh  once,  yea,  twice.  ...  In  a  dream, 
in  a  vision  of  the  night.  .  .  .  Then  he  openeth  the  ears  of 
men,  and  sealeth  their  instruction,  that  he  may  withdraw 
man  from  his  purpose,  and  hide  pride  from  man " 
(xxxiii,  14-17).  The  object  of  such  divine  communica- 
tions is  here  announced — to  hold  men  back  from  sin  and 
pride.  (2)  Afflictions  are  employed  for  the  same  end. 
Disease,  pain,  anguish,  loss,  misery,  visit  men,  and  they 
seem  to  be  in  the  full  power  of  the  destroyer.  In  met- 
ing out  sufferings  to  his  people  God  is  not  occupied  with 
the  penal  character  of  their  sin.  These  are  not  proof  of 
his  judicial  wrath.  On  the  contrary,  sufferings  are  de- 
signed to  bring  back  the  soul  from  the  pit,  to  be  enlight- 
ened with  the  light  of  the  living  (xxxiii,  24-30).  Afflic- 
tions, therefore,  are  not  the  expression  of  divine  wrath  ; 
they  flow  from  infinite  pity  and  love.  Elihu  concludes 
with  these  very  suggestive  words,  words  that  might 
almost  have  been  written  by  a  New  Testament  apostle : 
"  Surely  it  is  meet  to  be  said  unto  God,  I  have  borne 


112  ANTI-IilGIIER    CRITICISM. 

chastisement,  I  will  not  offend  any  more  :  that  which  I 
see  not  teach  thou  me  :  if  I  have  done  iniquity,  I  will  do 
no  more"  (xxxiv,  31,  32).  The  doctrine  of  Elihu  is  as 
distant  as  pole  from  pole  from  that  of  the  comforters. 
Job  recognizes  its  absolute  truth,  and  is  silent. 

4.  Job's  false  notions  of  himself.  "  I  am  clean  with- 
out transgression,  I  am  innocent  ;  neither  is  there  in- 
iquity in  me "  (xxxiii,  9).  What  words  for  a  poor 
sinful  mortal  to  utter,  for  one,  especially,  on  whom 
God's  heavy  hand  was  resting!  But  more,  though  so 
pure  and  innocent.  Job  complains  that  God  findeth  oc- 
casion against  him,  counteth  him  as  his  enemy.  Now 
here  is  a  palpable  discrepancy.  Could  a  holy  and  just 
God  find  fault  with  an  innocent  and  pure  man?  Impos- 
sible. Either  Job  is  self-deceived  or  God  is  unrighteous. 
Elihu  drives  him  into  this  dilemma,  then  pronounces 
judgment :  "  Behold,  in  this  thou  art  not  just :  I  will 
answer  thee,  that  God  is  greater  than  man."  What  a 
simple  truth  !  and  yet  most  appropriate.  If  God  be 
greater  than  man,  then  he  must  be  vindicated  in  all  his 
ways  with  his  people;  he  must  everlastingly  do  right. 
The  wrong,  therefore,  if  wrong  there  be  in  this  case, 
must  lie  at  Job's  door,  not  at  God's. 

5.  His  argument  as  to  Job's  animus.  It  is  a  most 
cogent  one,  a  word  in  season.  The  main  difficulty  with 
the  patriarch  lay  in  this,  his  persistent  refusal  to  allow 
any  reflection  upon  his  character  and  conduct.  His  in- 
tegrity must  not  be  questioned,  his  righteousness  he  will 
maintain  to  the  bitter  end.  The  slightest  imputation 
on  his  uprightness  drives  him  into  paroxysms  of  rage. 
Self-vindication,  and  hence  judgment  on  God's  ways  with 
him — that  is  Job's  trouble.  The  key  to  this  book  is 
found  in  chapter  xxxii,  i  :  "  So  these  three  men  ceased 
to  answer  Job,  because  he  was  righteous  in  his  own  eyes." 
True  and  loyal  to  God  as  he  was  at  the  core  of  his  heart, 


THE    BOOK   OF   JOB.  II3 

yet  unwittingly  ke  cherished  the  deadly  secret  of  self- 
righteousness  ;  he  thought  that  the  flesh,  that  thing  in 
which  Paul  says  dvvelleth  no  good  thing,  might  be  sanc- 
tified, made  pure  and  holy,  and  that  he  had  attained  it. 
Not  precisely  sinless  perfection,  but  perfection  in  the 
flesh.  So  sure  he  is  of  his  righteousness  that  he  even 
longs  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  that  he  may  there 
vindicate  himself:  "O  that  I  had  one  to  hear  me!  (Lo, 
here  is  my  signature,  let  the  Almighty  answer  me  ;)  and 
that  I  had  the  indictment  which  mine  adversary  hath 
written  !  "  (xxxi,  35.)  What  language  for  a  mortal,  for 
one  who  is  crushed  before  the  moth,  to  use  !  As  if  he 
said,  "  Let  the  Lord  draw  up  his  charges  against  me  ;  I 
will  march  into  his  presence,  head  erect,  and  will  answer 
him." 

Elihu  deals  honestly  and  efficiently  with  this  spirit  in 
the  Lord's  stricken,  half-delirious  servant,  and  Job  takes 
it  patiently;  for  light  is  breaking  in  his  troubled  soul; 
peace,  blessed  peace,  may  yet  be  his, 

VIL  The  Lord's  Revelation  of  Himself  to  Job. 

The  sublime  majesty  of  his  appearing ;  the  solemn,  over- 
whelming vindication  of  his  power  and  glory  ;  the  moral 
grandeur  of  the  scene,  it  would  be  vain  to  try  to  describe. 
All  we  now  wish  to  do  is  to  call  attention  to  the  effect 
upon  Job  (xlii,  5,  6),  "  I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing 
of  the  ear;  but  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee:  wherefore  I  abhor 
myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes."  What  a  thorough 
breakdown  !  What  profound  humiliation  follows  the  dis- 
covery that  he  has  been  wrong,  all  wrong  !  It  was  a  self- 
revelation  such  as  he  never  had  before.  It  is  Jacob 
hanging  limp,  his  thigh  out  of  joint,  about  the  angel's 
neck,  and  crying,  "  I  will  not  let  thee  go  except  thou 
bless  me."  A  mighty  but  precious  moment  that  brought 
him  where  all  the  arguments  of  the  philosophers  and  of 
Elihu  could  not  !    And  full  blessing  ensues.     Property 


114  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

doubled,  children  likewise  ;  for  ten  await  him  yonder, 
and  ten  are  given  him  here.  And  so  the  oldest  book  of 
the  world  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul. 

If  such  be  the  main  design  and  object  of  this  book  of 
Scripture  certain  conclusions  necessarily  follow : 

1.  The  book  contains  the  record  of  individual  and 
personal  experiences,  the  experience  of  the  man  Job. 

2.  It  contains  absolutely  nothing  which  on  any  fair 
principles  of  interpretation  can  be  ascribed  to  a  nation, 
as  Israel,  or  to  a  body  of  sufferers,  as  the  Babylonian 
exiles. 

3.  There  is  no  hint,  even  the  slightest,  that  it  stands 
related  to  the  Hebrew  people  as  such  in  any  period  of 
their  history. 

4.  Accordingly,  to  push  its  date  down  to  the  time  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity  in  order  to  find  an  adequate 
motive  for  its  composition  is  to  do  violence  alike  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  internal  evidence  and  to  the  external 
history. 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  11$ 


THE  BOOK  OF  PSALMS. 


BY  TALBOT  W.  CHAMBERS,  D.D.,  LL.D. 
Settlor  Minister  of  the  Collegiate  Dutch  Church  of  New  York. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  PSALTER. 

I.  Poetry.  A  glance  at  the  Book  of  Psalms  shows  that 
it  is  other  than  plain  prose,  although  the  way  in  which 
it  is  printed  in  the  Authorized  Version  has  concealed 
the  fact  from  inobservant  readers.  It  is  a  book  of  poetry. 
The  peculiar  nature  of  this  kind  of  composition  is  a 
point  that  has  been  discussed  from  the  days  of  Plato 
and  Aristotle  without  reaching  an  harmonious  conclusion. 
Indeed,  it  seems  to  be  admitted  that  the  essential  spirit 
of  poetry  is  indefinable,  and  even  its  concrete  forms  have 
not  been  characterized  in  a  way  which  all  will  admit. 
Yet  we  can  describe  what  we  cannot  define.  What  is 
truly  called  poetic  must  have  thought,  imagination,  and 
passion,  and  these  fused  into  tuneful  expression,  usually 
in  the  shape  of  rhythm  ;  and  thus  it  becomes  the  most 
vital  form  of  human  utterance.  Poetical  elements  are 
often  found  in  various  kinds  of  prose,  but  poetry  itself 
must  always  have  the  appropriate  form,  some  kind  of 
metrical  composition  or  that  which  is  a  substitute  for  it. 

Hebrew  poetry  is  entirely  destitute  of  meter.  It  has 
often  been  supposed  by  scholars  that  the\^  had  detected 
what  could  be  called  rhythm,  but  however  ingenious  their 
theories  none  ever  won  general  support  or  even  any 
considerable  following.     The  lack  of  the  vibratory  move- 


Il6  A\TI-HI(JHER   CRITICISM. 

ment  of  syllables  and  feet  in  the  several  words  is  com- 
pensated by  a  corresponding  arrangement  of  clauses, 
called  parallelism.  Each  separate  utterance,  whether 
narrative,  doctrinal,  ethical,  or  devotional,  is  thrown  into 
an  antithetical  form,  and  thus  is  made  a  couplet  or  a  trip- 
let or  an  integral  verse  consisting  of  four,  five,  or  six 
lines.  The  second  line  is  often  only  a  repetition  of  the 
first  in  other  terms,  or  an  utterance  of  its  contrast,  or  an 
illustrative  supplement  to  it,  or  an  exceptive  caution. 
Thus  everywhere  the  poem  is  built  up  of  members  which 
balance  each  other;  and  they  do  this,  not  because  the 
logical  development  of  thought  requires  it,  but  because 
this  is  the  established  form  of  poetical  composition.  The 
same  peculiarity  is  found  in  the  remains  of  Egyptian  and 
Assyrian  literature,  but  not  so  weP.  defined  nor  so  fully 
developed  as  among  the  Hebrews.  This  peculiarity, 
apparently  so  arbitrary,  is  an  immense  advantage  to  the 
translator  into  a  different  language.  The  musical  rhythm 
of  the  classic  poets  cannot  be  adequately  rendered  into 
other  tongues.  The  sense  may  be  given,  but  the  charm 
of  melody  and  form  evaporates.  Not  so  with  the  He- 
braic muse.  The  forms  into  which  it  casts  its  passionate 
thought  can  be  exactly  reproduced  even  in  languages 
at  the  furthest  remove  from  kinship  to  what  is  oriental, 
such  as  our  own.  The  parallelism  has  been  needlessly 
disregarded  in  the  Authorized  Version,  but  is  fairly  ex- 
hibited in  the  Revised  Version  and  in  nearly  all  other 
modern  translations.  And  it  is  worthy  of  careful  atten- 
tion, not  only  as  a  key  to  the  meaning  of  what  is  ambig- 
uous, but  also  as  showing  the  salient  points  of  a  passage 
in  their  true  relation,  and  often  greatly  enhancing  the 
beauty  and  force  of  the  thought.  "  The  amplifications 
of  a  given  point  are  like  the  echoes  of  a  solemn  melody^ 
the  repetitions  of  it  like  a  landscape  reflected  in  the 
stream."    As  Dean  Stanley  says  {Jcivish  Church,  ii,  165), 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  II7 

"  The  rapid  stroke  as  of  alternate  wings,  the  heaving 
and  sinking  as  of  the  troubled  heart,  which  have  been 
beautifully  described  (by  Ewald  in  his  DicJiter  des  A.  B.) 
as  the  essence  of  the  parallel  structure  of  Hebrew  verses 
are  exactly  suited  for  the  endless  play  of  human  feeling 
and  for  the  understanding  of  every  age  and  nation." 

Besides  the  parallelism  there  is  sometimes  an  alpha- 
betical arrangement  of  the  verses,  something  of  the  same 
nature  as  the  modern  acrostic.  The  initial  letters  of  the 
successive  lines  or  couplets  follow  the  order  of  the  letters 
of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  There  are  eight  of  these  alpha- 
betical psalms,  and  in  one,  the  longest  in  the  collection, 
all  the  couplets  of  each  stanza  begin  with  the  same  letter 
— a  peculiarity  which  cannot,  without  unnatural  forcing, 
be  reproduced  in  English.  This  device  is  reasonably  at- 
tributed to  a  desire  to  aid  the  memory,  most  of  the  lyrics 
in  which  it  occurs  being  detached  thoughts  on  one  sub- 
ject. (These  are  ix,  x,  xxv,  xxxiv,  xxxviii,  cxi,  cxii,  cxix, 
and  cxlv.)  Objection  has  often  been  made  to  the  arti- 
ficial character  of  these  compositions,  acrostic  verse  not 
being  highly  esteemed  in  modern  literature  ;  but  the  ob- 
jection is  met  by  consideration  of  the  fact  that  in  the 
East  such  forms  of  utterance  have  always  been  highly  es- 
teemed, and  of  the  additional  fact  that  in  ancient  times  it 
was  desirable  that  the  learner  should  have  every  possible 
advantage  in  getting  by  heart  the  sacred  oracles.  Psalms 
cxi  and  cxii  form  a  very  interesting  pair  in  form  and  in 
subject,  both  being  acrostics  and  beginning  with  Halle- 
hijaJi.  The  former  celebrates  the  greatness  and  loving- 
kindness  of  Jehovah  in  the  circle  of  "the  upright," 
and  the  latter  the  blessings  thence  resulting  to  "the 
upright "  themselves.  Taken  together  they  set  forth 
cause  and  effect,  the  blessed  Jehovah  and  his  blessed 
people. 

2.   The  Poems  arc  Lyrics.      It  is  generally  agreed  by 


Il8  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

sober  scholars  that  there  is  no  epic  poetry  in  Scripture 
and  no  dramatic.  Ewald,  indeed,  ventured  to  call  Job  a 
tragedy  and  Canticles  a  comedy,  but  without  any  reason, 
for  the  chief  element  of  a  drama,  namely,  action,  is  con- 
spicuously absent  from  both.  There  is,  indeed,  dialogue, 
but  this  is  quite  devoid  of  incident,  and  occurs  without 
change  of  place  or  of  time.  The  Psalter  is  lyrical  from 
end  to  end.  Its  Hebrew  name  is  the  Book  of  Praises,  or 
Praise  Songs,  although  many  of  the  poems  are  rather 
prayers  than  praises.  Most  of  the  terms  prefixed  to  the 
psalms  have  the  same  bearing,  as  SJtir,  something  sung, 
and  Mizmor,  a  song  with  a  musical  accompaniment.  The 
same  thing  is  confirmed  by  the  frequent  references  to 
stringed,  wind,  and  percussive  instruments,  such  as  the 
harp,  psaltery,  trumpet,  and  cymbals,  and  also  by  the 
fact  that  more  than  fifty  of  these  inspired  compositions 
bear  the  inscription,  "To  the  Chief  Musician." 

They  were  not  only  regarded  as  lyrical,  but  also  in- 
tended to  be  used  in  public  worship,  and  that  notwith- 
standing that  they  sprang  from  the  domestic  or  personal 
relations  of  the  writer  and  recited  his  subjective  experi- 
ence, or  were  simply  gnomic  utterances  of  theoretical  or 
practical  wisdom.  No  distinction  seems  to  have  been 
made  among  the  psalms  on  any  of  these  grounds.  All 
were  considered  worthy  vehicles  of  the  vocal  worship 
Israel  was  trained  to  offer  to  the  God  of  their  fathers — 
a.  fact  which  may  well  awaken  doubt  of  the  view  now 
so  prevalent  that  only  objective  hymns,  or  such  as  are 
direct  ascriptions  of  praise  and  honor,  are  suited  to  the 
common  service  of  the  sanctuary.  Human  nature  has 
not  changed,  and  what  was  appropriate  for  worship  ages 
ago  may  still  be  suited  to  express  the  sense  of  the  godly 
when  they  draw  near  to  the  Most  High.  It  is  certain 
that  many  hymns  which  are  nothing  but  recitals  of  indi- 
vidual experience  have  been  and  are  widely  acceptable 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  119 

and  useful  among  Christians  of  every  name.  Nor  is  it 
likely  that  such  lyrics  will  pass  out  of  use. 

3.  The  Poems  are  Distinctly  Religious.  This  is  their 
chief  and  most  remarkable  characteristic.  The  Hebrews, 
it  is  well  known,  were  a  people  who  cultivated  song,  and 
with  it  celebrated  all  their  occasions  of  joy  and  of  sorrow. 
The  reapers  sang  as  they  garnered  the  golden  harvests, 
the  vintagers  as  they  trod  the  wine  press,  and  the  women 
as  they  toiled  at  the  mill ;  there  were  love  songs  and 
marriage  songs  ;  there  were  the  wail  of  the  mourners  who 
go  about  the  streets  and  the  dirge  of  the  funeral  train 
bearing  the  dead  to  their  long  home  ;  the  armies  return- 
ing from  victory  were  received  by  processions  of  singers, 
and  often  there  were  choruses  which  accompanied  the 
troops  to  the  battle  and  sang  war  songs  to  nerve  theni 
to  the  charge  ;  their  banquets  were  enlivened  by  songs 
and  instruments  of  music.  In  short,  there  was  no  feature 
of  their  social  and  national  life  that  was  not  mixed  up 
with  melodious  vocal  utterance.  But  notwithstanding 
this  fact  we  find  no  intrusion  of  any  mere  secular  bursts 
of  song  in  the  Psalter.  There  are,  as  there  have  been, 
those  who  maintain  the  contrary,  but  we  are  persuaded 
that  they  are  mistaken.  The  compiler  of  the  Psalter  did 
not  accept  whatever  came  before  him,  but  rigidly  limited 
himself  to  sacred  and  religious  lyrics. 

There  are  no  patriotic  psalms.  There  are  none  which 
celebrate  the  glory  of  Palestine  as  the  land  of  Israel. 
When  Jerusalem  or  Zion  is  mentioned  it  is  not  as  the 
capital  of  the  land  or  the  home  of  the  monarch,  but  in- 
variably as  the  dwelling  place  of  Jehovah.  Even  the 
remarkable  137th  Psalm  is  no  exception.  When  the 
captives  in  Babylon  were  required  to  make  mirth  for 
their  oppressors  they  hanged  up  their  harps  upon  the 
willows,  and  the  question  that  rose  to  their  lips  was, 
*'  How  shall  we  sing  the  Lord's  song  in  a  strange  land?" 


120  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

It  was  the  sense  of  religious  desecration  that  pierced 
their  souls  and  brought  forth  their  tears.  The  people  no 
doubt  loved  their  country,  but  it  was  as  the  land  cove- 
nanted by  Jehovah  to  their  forefathers,  and  the  place 
where 

"  He  showed  his  word  unto  Jacob, 

His  statutes  and  his  judgments  unto  Israel." 

Nor  are  there  any  songs  \\\  praise  of  ?mtional  heroes. 
There  was  no  lack  of  such  persons  in  their  annals,  as  the 
illustrious  roll  call  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews 
abundantly  shows.  But  not  one  of  them  has  a  psalm  in 
his  honor.  The  Book  of  Jasher  (orThe  Upright),  several 
times  mentioned  in  the  histories,  is  commonly  supposed 
to  be  a  record  of  those  elders  who  had  witness  borne  to 
them  for  their  notable  exploits,  but  none  of  these  ob- 
tained admission  into  the  Psalter.  David's  exquisite 
elegy  over  Saul  and  Jonathan  and  his  shorter  burst  of 
sorrow  over  Abner  were  recorded  in  the  annals  of  the 
nation,  but  neither  found  a  place  in  the  praise  songs  of 
Israel.  We  know  not  who  made  the  collection  as  it  has 
come  down  to  us,  but  surely  the  compiler  was  divinely 
guided.  The  spirit  of  the  whole  is  expressed  in  the 
opening  words  of  Psalm  cxv  : 

"  Not  unto  us,  O  Lord,  not  unto  us, 
But  unto  thy  name  give  glory." 

If  one  desires  to  see  a  contrast  he  may  find  it  in  the  odes 
of  Pindar,  or  still  more  vividly  in  the  several  (xliv-xlix) 
chapters  of  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  where 
the  writer  gives  a  detailed  list  of  Israel's  great  men  from 
Enoch  down  to  Nehemiah,  celebrating  the  praises  of 
each  with  no  small  rhetorical  skill.  "  The  king  "  is  the 
subject  of  the  Twentieth  Psalm,  but  the  theme  is  not 
what  he  has  accomplished,  but  what  God  has  been 
pleased   to  confer  upon  him.     In   all  cases  where  it  is 


THE    BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  121 

otherwise  the  royal  personage  is  not  any  mere  human 
occupant  of  David's  throne,  but  that  exalted  Being  of 
the  increase  of  whose  government  and  peace  there  was  to 
be  no  end.  This  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  deeds 
and  excellencies  are  ascribed  to  him  which  cannot,  even 
by  the  wildest  oriental  hyperbole,  be  considered  as  be- 
longing to  any  mere  son  of  man. 

No  ;  the  Psalter  is  through  and  through  a  religious 
book.  It  abounds  in  prayers  and  praises,  but  these  are 
always  addressed  to  God.  His  name,  his  perfections,  his 
word,  his  works,  are  celebrated  in  every  variet)'^  of  form. 
There  are  descriptions  of  character,  but  it  is  always  in 
reference  to  man's  relation  to  God.  There  are  poetical 
recapitulations  of  the  national  history,  but  the  chief  fea- 
ture is  what  the  Most  High  has  done  for  his  people,  not 
what  they  have  done  for  him. 

4.  The  Oldest  Division.  While  the  Psalms  form  one 
book  and  are  so  referred  to  by  our  Lord  (Luke  xx,  42) 
and  his  apostles  (Acts  i,  20),  yet  from  a  very  early  period 
they  were  divided  into  five  distinctive  collects,  each  of 
which  is  closed  by  a  doxology,  and  in  the  case  of  the  first 
three  by  a  double  Amen.  The  principle  which  underlies 
this  division  is  not  certainly  known.  The  ancient  rabbins 
saw  in  the  five  books  of  the  Psalter  an  image  of  the  five 
books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Delitzsch  called  the  Psalter 
"  The  congregation's  fivefold  word  to  the  Lord,  even  as 
the  Tliorah  (law)  is  the  Lord's  fivefold  word  to  the  con- 
gregation." The  arrangement,  overlooked  in  the  Au- 
thorized Version,  is  introduced  into  the  Revised  Version. 
Book  I  comprises  Psalms  i  to  xli ;  Book  H  comprises 
Psalms  xlii  to  Ixxii ;  Book  HI  comprises  Psalms  Ixxiii  to 
Ixxxix;  Book  IV  comprises  Psalms  xc  to  cvi ;  Book  V 
comprises  Psalms  cvii  to  cl.  It  has  been  conjectured, 
with  considerable  show  of  reason,  that  these  several 
books  were  collections  made  at  different  times  and  by 


122  ANTI-llTGIIER    CRITICISM. 

different  persons,  and  afterward  brought  together  into 
one  and  furnished  with  a  common  title.  As  a  general 
rule  the  oldest  psalms  stand  first,  the  latest  last ;  yet 
there  are  many  exceptions.  The  curious  note  added  to 
Psalm  Ixxii,  "  The  prayers  of  David  are  ended,"  indicates 
simply  what  is  true  of  the  foregoing  collection,  and  by  no 
means  casts  doubts  upon  the  authenticity  of  subsequent 
lyrics  ascribed  to  the  son  of  Jesse.  The  contents  of  the 
Psalter  are  certainly  not  arranged  chronologically,  save 
in  the  general  way  already  mentioned,  but  rather  in 
groups  distinguished  by  some  common  character;  that 
is,  the  Pilgrim  Psalms,  the  Hallelujah  Psalms,  etc. 

Of  late  much  attention  has  been  given  to  the  variant 
use  of  the  divine  names,  God  (Elohim)  and  Jehovah 
(Lord).  The  facts  are  these:  In  Book  I  Jehovah  oc- 
curs 278  times  and  Elohim  only  48  times.  In  Book  II 
the  proportion  is  reversed,  Elohim  occurring  198  times 
and  Jehovah  33  times.  In  Book  III  there  are  psalms  in 
which  Elohim  predominates  and  others  in  which  Jehovah 
predominates,  the  former  being  used  60  times,  the  latter 
43.  In  the  last  two  books  the  name  Jehovah  is  almost 
exclusively  used,  the  proportion  being  379  for  it,  against 
45  for  Elohim.  The  reason  of  this  difference  of  usage 
is  very  hard  to  see.  That  there  must  have  been  some 
reason  appears  from  the  fact  that  in  several  verses  of 
Psalm  xiv  (3,  4,  6,  7)  the  name  Jehovah  occurs,  yet  in 
Psalm  liii,  which  is  a  repetition  of  it,  in  all  these  places 
Elohim  is  substituted.  The  same  thing  is  seen  in 
Psalm  Ixx  when  compared  with  the  closing  verses  of 
Psalm  xl.  A  partial  help  in  understanding  this  usage  is 
gotten  by  bearing  in  mind  that  Elohim  is  the  general 
name  for  deity,  and  is  applied  by  accommodation  to 
angels,  magistrates,  and  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  while 
Jehovah  is  the  peculiar  name  of  the  Most  High  as  the 
covenant  God   of  Israel,  and   is   absolutely   incommuni- 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  1 23 

cable.  One  can  see  very  well  why  the  fool's  utterance  in 
his  heart  is,  "  There  is  no  God,'"  which  is  atheism  pure 
and  simple,  whereas  to  say  "  TJicre  is  no  JcJiovali  "  is 
simply  to  deny  the  existence  of  Israel's  God.  But  this 
does  not  help  one  to  understand  why  a  whole  book 
should  contain  mainly  Elohim  psalms.  Some  have  con- 
tended that  the  usage  is  a  matter  of  time,  JeJiovaJi  being 
a  sign  of  an  early  date,  while  EloJiiui  indicates  a  later 
period.  But  this  cannot  be.  Psalm  Ixviii,  7,  8,  is  almost 
a  literal  copy  of  Judg.  v,  4,  5  ;  yet  in  the  latter,  which 
is  beyond  question  earlier,  Jehovah  is  used,  while  in  the 
former  it  is  replaced  by  Elohim.  The  complete  solution 
of  the  question  as  to  the  cause  of  the  variant  usage 
seems  unattainable.  Yet  this  fact  does  not  create  any 
embarrassment  in  the  use  of  the  Psalter.  Many  ingenious 
theories  have  been  devised  to  account  for  the  division 
into  five  books  and  for  certain  differences  between  the 
several  books  ;  but  none  of  these  are  needed  to  aid  either 
the  critical  interpreter  or  the  devotional  reader  of  these 
sacred  songs.  Each  book  contains  lyrics  of  every  class, 
early  or  late,  joyful,  mournful,  or  gnomic,  objective  or 
subjective,  individual  or  general ;  and  the  instruction  is 
the  same  whatever  the  place  of  the  composition  or  its 
date.  Perowne,  in  his  Commentary  (i,  79),  makes  a  re- 
mark which  every  faithful  and  unprejudiced  student  will 
acknowledge  to  be  just :  "To  give  a  reason  for  the  place 
of  each  psalm  is  as  impossible  as  to  give  a  reason  for  the 
order  of  the  different  suras  (chapters)  in  the  Koran, 
though  there  we  see  a  general  principle  adhered  to,  the 
larger  suras  coming  first  and  the  smaller  afterward,  with- 
out any  regard  to  chronological  sequence." 

Leaving  aside  all  questions  as  to  date,  place,  and  au- 
thorship, I  propose  to  mention  and  characterize  some 
groupings  of  these  lyrics,  either  such  as  have  been  made 
in  the  past  or  such  as  suggest  themselves  to  a  careful 


124  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

reader,  simply  with  a  view  to  gain  an  insight  into  the 
ample  and  varied  riches  of  the  Psalter.  These  are  not 
to  be  taken  strictly  or  exclusively,  since  the  same  psalm 
may  for  one  reason  be  assigned  to  one  group,  and  yet 
for  another  reason  be  viewed  as  belonging  to  a  different 
class.  Thus  the  130th  is  a  song  of  ascents  and  at  the 
same  time  is  one  of  the  Penitential  Psalms. 

(i.)  TJie  Pilgriui  Psalms.  The  fir^-t  class,  to  be  men- 
tioned is  one  that  stands  out  on  the  face  of  the  book, 
there  being  fifteen  (cxx-cxxxiv),  each  of  which  bears  the 
title  "  A  Song  of  Degrees,' '  or,  as  it  is  more  correctly  given 
in  the  Revised  Version,  "A  Song  of  Ascents."  It  was  for- 
merly thought  that  this  name  arose  from  the  custom  of 
the  Levites  to  chant  these  psalms  while  standing  on  an 
ascent  of  fifteen  steps  between  the  court  of  the  women 
and  the  court  of  Israel ;  but  this  is  now  generally  given 
up.  Others  have  referred  the  name  to  a  peculiarity  of 
structure,  a  phrase  of  one  sentence  being  repeated  in  the 
next  with  some  addition,  so  as  to  form  a  progression  or 
gradation  of  thought  and  language.  But  although  this 
is  quite  conspicuous  in  some  of  these  little  songs  (cxxi, 
cxxiv)  it  does  not  characterize  the  whole,  and  therefore 
is  inadequate.  The  popular  view  of  the  negative  critics 
is  that  they  were  sung  by  the  exiles  on  their  return  from 
Babylon,  even  as  the  Lord  had  promised  that  his  ran- 
somed should  "  return  and  come  with  singing  unto  Zion  '" 
(Isa.  XXXV,  10).  But  it  is  far  more  likely  that  the  title 
denotes  the  use  of  these  songs  by  the  people  at  their 
"goings  up  "  to  Jerusalem  year  by  year,  at  the  annual 
festivals.  Hence  they  have  come  to  be  called  Pilgrim 
Psalms.  Doubtless  they  were  used  by  the  returning 
exiles,  but  that  use  was  only  the  resumption  of  an  earlier 
custom.  They  are  for  the  most  part  expressions  of 
hope  and  trust  blended  with  confessions  and  thanksgiv- 
ings.    The  whole  world  has  no  SAveeter  ballads.     Where 


THE    BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  I25 

is  there  such  a  setting  forth  of  brotherly  love  as  in  the 
song  (cxxxiii), 

"  Behold,  how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is 
For  brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity?" 

or   such   an  expression  of  the  joy  a|id  unlooked-for  de- 
liverance as  (cxxvi), 

"  When  the  Lord  turned  again  the  captivity  of  Zion, 
We  were  like  unto  them  that  dream  ?" 

or  such  blending  of  faith  and  obedience  as  in  the    123d 
Psalm  : 

"  Unto  thee  do  I  lift  up  mine  eyes, 

O  thou  that  sittest  in  the  heavens. 

Beho'd,  as  the  eyes  of  servants  look  unto  the  hand  of  their  master, 

As  the  eyes  of  a  maiden  unto  the  hand  of  her  mistress, 

So  our  eyes  look  unto  Jehovah,  our  God, 

Until  he  have  mercy  upon  us?  " 

(2.)  TJie  Penitential  Psalms.  These  are  not  clustered 
together  in  the  Psalter,  nor  do  they  bear  any  distinguish- 
ing title  ;  yet  from  the  time  of  Origen  these  seven  lyrics 
(vi,  xxxii,  xxxviii,  li,  cii,  cxxx,  cxliii)  have  been  regarded 
as  belonging  to  one  class  and  have  borne  a  common 
nature,  and  with  great  propriety.  They  set  forth  in 
an  experimental  way  the  nature,  character,  and  effects 
of  true  repentance  with  a  precision  not  surpassed  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  the  well-known  fifty-first  the  royal 
penitent  strikes  the  keynote  of  scriptural  penitence. 
He  goes  beyond  his  outward  transgressions,  gross  as  they 
were,  and  acknowledges  the  depraved  heart  from  which 
all  sins  proceed,  and  which,  so  far  from  excusing  them, 
only  increases  their  enormity.  The  expressions  of  grief 
and  pain  are  very  strong,  yet  in  every  age  have  found 
believers  able  sincerely  to  adopt  them  as  just  and  appro- 
priate. Moreover,  these  Old  Testament  singers,  even 
when  crying  out  of  the  depths  in  which  they  were  over- 


126  ANTI-MIGHER   CRITICISM. 

whelmed,  have  an  apprehension  of  the  divine  mercy 
which  is  never  felt  by  the  victim  of  mere  remorse. 

Nor  is  the  compassion  which  they  seek  and  expect 
only  the  forbearance  that  springs  from  indifference  or 
insensibility  to  the  evil  of  sin,  but  one  based  upon  a  far 
profounder  view  of  things.     Even  as  on    assures  himself, 

"  But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee, 
Tliat  thou  mayest  be  feared  "  (cxxx,  4), 

David,  in  the  classic  song  on  the  subject,  entreats  for  a 
new  heart  and  a  right  spirit,  and,  these  being  granted, 
promises, 

"  Then  will  I  teach  transgressors  thy  ways, 
And  sinners  shall  be  converted  unto  thee." 

This  combination  of  grief  and  hope  and  a  new  life  is 
wholly  unique  in  all  ancient  literature.  The  penitential 
hymns  of  other  races  mingle  violations  of  ritual  with 
moral  offenses,  and  even  when  they  state  the  latter  fail 
to  go  down  to  the  fofis  Dialoriim,  the  depraved  nature, 
which  is  the  primal  cause  of  all  departures  from  truth 
and  duty.  It  is  only  in  the  Hebrew  lyrics  that  we  find 
an  adequate  view  of  man's  fallen  condition  and  a  satis- 
factory statement  of  the  means  and  method  of  recovery. 
There  is  no  softening  down  of  the  evil  of  sin,  but  along 
with  a  penetrating  view  of  its  deplorable  extent  and  char- 
acter a  devout  and  joyful  recognition  of  the  remedy. 

(3.)  Praise  to  Jehovah  as  the  God  of  Nature  (viii,  xxix, 
civ).  Modern  poets  are  never  tired  of  dwelling  upon  the 
beauties  of  nature  in  heaven  and  earth,  on  sea  or  land, 
in  mountain  and  plain,  amid  pathless  woods  or  along 
flowery  streams.  The  Hebrew  poet  perceived  these 
things  and  felt  them,  but  he  never  speaks  of  them  for 
their  own  sake.  Nor  does  he  ever  show  the  meditative 
sympathy  with  nature's  visible  forms  such  as  we  are 
wont  to   see   in   Wordsworth,  Tennyson,    and   our   own 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  12/ 

Bryant.  He  looks  upon  the  fair  variety  of  things  only 
as  illustrating  the  unsearchable  riches  of  God.  Scenes 
of  grandeur  or  of  loveliness  have  no  intrinsic  interest, 
and  no  charm  for  the  imagination  apart  from  the  thought 
of  their  Creator.  The  first  and  deepest  impression  upon 
him  is  given  in  the  words,  "  O,  Jehovah,  our  Lord,  how 
excellent  is  thy  name  in  all  the  earth  !  "  In  the  Twenty- 
ninth  Psalm  there  is  a  powerful  description  of  a  storm 
sweeping  over  the  land,  crashing  down  on  the  forests, 
shaking  the  wilderness,  and  upheaving  even  Lebanon  and 
Sirion,  but  every  single  startling  result  is  ascribed  directly 
to  the  Most  High.  "  The  God  of  glory  thundereth  ;  "  and 
it  is  his  voice  that  breaketh  the  cedars  and  heweth  out 
flames  of  fire.  The  thrilling  incidents  are  specified,  not  on 
their  own  account,  but  to  show  the  glory  of  Him  whose 
kingdom  ruleth  over  all.  So  in  the  104th  Psalm  the  singer 
follows  closely  the  order  of  creation  given  in  the  opening 
of  Genesis,  but,  with  a  poet's  touch,  sets  forth  the  suc- 
cessive steps  of  the  process  as  they  display  the  power, 
wisdom,  or  goodness  of  God.  The  clouds  are  his  chariot, 
and  he  moves  upon  the  wings  of  the  wind ;  at  his  voice 
the  mountains  rise  and  the  valleys  sink  down ;  he  starts 
the  springs  that  give  drink  to  every  beast  of  the  field, 
and  he  causeth  the  grass  to  grow  ;  his  are  the  trees  where 
the  birds  make  their  nests  and  sing  among  the  branches  ; 
day  and  night,  come  at  iiis  command  ;  the  earth  is  full 
of  his  riches,  and  so  is  the  great  and  wide  sea  where  go 
the  ships;  all  things  and  all  creatures  are  dependent 
upon  him  ;  and  so  the  conclusion  is, 

"  I  will  sing  unto  Jehovah  as  long  as  I  live  : 

I  will  sing  praise  to  my  God  while  I  have  any  being." 

Certainly  a  very  natural  conclusion  from  such  traces 
of  order,  of  thought,  and  of  adaptation,  of  wise  and  ten- 
der care,  as  constrained  the  exclamation. 


128  ANTI-IIIGHKK    CRITICISM. 

"  O,  Jehovah,  how  manifold  are  thy  works! 
In  wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all." 

(4.)  TJic  Historical  Psalms.  A  fourth  class  is  that 
which  recalls  God's  dealings  of  old.  These  are  Ixxviii, 
cv,  cvii,  cxiv.  They  recite  the  annals  of  the  past  with 
poetical  enlargement,  but  never  so  as  to  feed  national 
vanity  or  exalt  any  of  the  chosen  leaders  of  the  race. 
On  thecontrary,  the  sins  and  shortcomings  of  the  people 
are  recounted  with  unsparing  fidelity,  and  are  made 
conspicuous  by  contrast  with  the  goodness  and  mercy 
of  God.  The  plain  object  of  the  singer  is  to  embalm  the 
chief  incidents  of  former  times  in  such  strains  as  will  in- 
duce the  people  to  seek  the  Lord,  and 

"  Remember  his  marvelous  works  that  he  hath  done ; 
His  wonders,  and  the  judgments  of  his  mouth." 

The  covenant  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  the 
experience  of  Joseph,  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and 
the  preceding  signs,  the  miracles  of  the  desert,  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Jordan,  the  successive  apostasies  of  the  people, 
and  the  judgments  following,  and  then  God's  interposi- 
tions, are  all  dwelt  upon  until  the  establishment  of  the 
sanctuary  and  kingdom  upon  Mount  Zion,  with  the 
single  purpose  to  utter  the  mighty  acts  of  the  Lord  and 
to  show  forth  all  his  praise. 

Particularly  noticeable  in  this  relation  are  Psalms  Ixxvii 
and  cxiv.  In  the  former  the  singer  begins  in  deep  de- 
jection. His  eyes  are  held  waking,  his  soul  refuses  to  be 
comforted,  he  is  so  troubled  that  he  cannot  speak ;  but 
it  occurs  to  him  to  remember  the  years  of  the  Lord's 
right  hand  and  to  make  mention  of  his  doings.  So  he 
recalls  the  wondrous  story  of  the  exodus,  and  tells  in 
poetic  form  what  happened  then  : 

"  The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God  ; 

The  waters  saw  thee,  they  were  afraid: 

The  depths  also  trembled," 


THE   BOOK    OF   PSALMS.  129 

and  in  consequence  God  led  forth  the  people  like  a 
flock.  In  the  latter  the  poet  celebrates  in  a  very  lively 
manner  the  power  of  God  over  nature  in  the  migration 
of  his  people  from  Egypt,  personifying  the  objects  ad- 
dressed. Hence,  in  reference  to  the  divine  appearance, 
he  says : 

'  The  sea  saw  it,  and  fled  ; 

Jordan  was  driven  back. 

The  mountains  skipped  like  rams, 

The  little  hills  like  young  sheep. 

What  aileth  thee,  O  thou  sea,  that  thou  fleest  ? 

Thou  Jordan,  that  thou  turnest  back? 

Tremble,  thou  earth,  at  the  presence  of  Jehovah, 

At  the  presence  of  the  God  of  Jacob." 

In  this  brief,  sententious  utterance  the  amazing  mir- 
acles wrought  at  the  Red  Sea  and  at  the  crossing  of  the 
Jordan  and  the  intervening  wonders  are  poetically 
glanced  at,  but  there  is  no  mention  of  either  Moses  or 
Joshua,  much  less  of  any  inferior  believers.  The  entire 
reference  is  to  the  power  and  presence  of  the  Most  High, 
and  the  thought  of  all  readers  or  singers  is  lifted  at  once 
from  earth  to  heaven,  from  man  to  God.  There  is  no  elab- 
orate description,  and  no  need  of  any.  The  brief  state- 
ment, the  bold  comparison,  the  vivid  question,  the  closing 
admonition,  bring  up  at  once  before  the  mind  the  whole 
series  of  miraculous  interpositions,  and  give  emphasis 
to  the  thought  of  God's  hand  as  the  one  great  ruling 
cause.  This  thought  filled  the  mind  of  the  poet,  and 
when  it  is  uttered  he  ceases,  not  abruptly,  but  on  pur- 
pose to  secure  the  unity  and  depth  of  the  one  impression. 
That  being  secured,  all  else  that  is  needful  will  follow  of 
itself. 

(5.)  TJic  Didactic.  Usually  one  does  not  find  else- 
where gnomic  poems  counted  among  the  lyrics,  yet  this 
is  certainly  the  case  in  the  Psalter,  as  in   some  cases  the 


130  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

inscription  shows,  and  in  others  the  general  design  of 
the  entire  collection. 

{a)  Sometimes  the  aim  of  these  utterances  is  to  set 
forth  t/ie  character  and  destiny  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked,  of  which  the  First  Psalm  is  a  conspicuous  instance, 
fitting  it  to  be  a  suitable  preface  to  the  whole  body  of 
lyrics,  as  it  sums  up  in  few  and  well-chosen  words,  nega- 
tively and  positively,  in  figure  and  direct  speech,  all  that 
is  to  be  said  on  the  subject.  A  similar  example  is  found 
in  Psalm  xxxvii,  "  Fret  not  thyself  because  of  evildoers," 
etc.,  where  the  phraseology  approaches  that  of  the  Book 
of  Proverbs,  with  this  considerable  difference,  however, 
that  many  of  the  sententious  apothegms  of  the  Proverbs 
are  simply  prudential,  and  do  not  imply  religious  thought  ; 
for  example, 

"  It  is  naught,  it  is  naught,  saith  the  buyer : 

But  when  he  is  gone  his  wa)',  then  he  boasteth  ; " 

whereas  in  the  l)ric  the  moral  or  religious  reference  is 
always  either  asserted  or  necessarily  implied. 

{b)  A  favorite  theme  is  the  excellence  of  the  divine 
hnv.  The  notable  examples  of  this  are  Psalms  xix  and 
cxix.  The  former  begins  by  declaring  with  matchless 
simplicity  and  beauty  the  glory  of  God  as  it  shines  in 
the  visible  universe,  and  then  by  an  abrupt  transition 
passes  to  the  better  revelation  whose  merits  it  sets  forth, 
and  finally  closes  with  appropriate  prayers  founded 
upon  the  perfection  and  blessedness  of  the  law.  The 
evident  reference  here  to  a  written  word  teaches  us 
much  concerning  David's  advantages.  The  latter  is 
a  prolonged  variation  upon  the  one  theme.  It  is 
divided  into  stanzas,  each  of  which  begins  its  eight 
couplets  with  the  same  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet, 
but  the  subject  is  the  same  throughout.  Yet,  artificial  as 
the  framework  is,  it  is  pervaded  by  a  living  spirit  which 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  131 

redeems  it  from  monotony,  and  not  unfrequently  there 
are  bursts  of  genuine  passion,  as, 

"  Hot  indignation  hath  taken  hold  upon  me, 
Because  of  the  wicked  that  forsake  thy  law"  (53)  ; 

or  such  gracious  utterances  as, 

"  Thy  statutes  have  been  my  songs 
In  the  house  of  my  pilgrimage  "  (54). 

(c)  The  vanity  of  Jmman  life  is  another  theme  for 
didactic  instruction.  An  instance  is  found  in  Psalm 
xxxix,  where  the  few  and  evil  days  of  man's  life  on 
earth  are  treated,  not  in  a  sentimental  way,  but  strictly 
in  a  religious  relation.  If  man's  days  are  a  handbreadth, 
if  at  his  best  estate  he  is  a  breath,  a  passing  vapor,  surely 
his  hope  should  be  alone  in  the  Lord.  Again,  in  Psalm 
xlix  the  affecting  contrast  between  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  as  to  the  possession  of  wealth  is  alleviated,  and 
its  bitterness  taken  away,  by  the  assurance  that  the  rich 
prodigal  can  take  none  of  his  wealth  with  him,  but  must 
die  with  the  beasts  that  perish,  while  the  faithful  man 
can  say, 

"  God  will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power  of  Sheol : 
For  he  shall  receive  me." 

Again,  in  the  lofty  and  melancholy  psalm  ascribed  to 
Moses  (xc)  human  frailty  is  set  forth  in  contrast  with 
the  eternal  years  of  God,  and  its  relation  to  sin,  secret  as 
well  as  open,  is  so  presented  as  to  give  great  point  to  the 
petition, 

"  So  leach  us  lo  number  our  days, 

That  we  may  get  us  an  heart  of  wisdom." 

(6.)  Songs  of  Thanksgiving.  This  element  pervades 
the  Psalter  as  a  whole,  but  it  is  especially  conspicuous 
in  certain  lyrics.  One  of  these  is  a  psalm  of  Asaph 
(Ixxvi),  usually  supposed  to  have  been  first  sung  on  occa- 


132  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

sion  of  the  overthrow  of   Sennacherib  when  the   angel 
of  the  Lord  smote  his  whole  army  : 

"  At  thy  rebuke,  O  God  of  Jacob, 

Both  chariot  and  horse  are  cast  into  a  dead  sleep. 

Thou,  even  thou,  art  to  be  feared : 

And  who  may  stand  in  thy  sight  when  once  thou  art  angry?" 

A  more  complete  specimen  is  found  in  Psalm  ciii, 
where  the  singing,  beginning  with  the  summons,  "  Bless 
the  Lord,  O  my  soul,"  enlarges  upon  the  goodness  and 
mercy  of  the  Lord  in  a  graceful  variety  of  phrase,  and 
then,  after  calling  upon  the  angels  mighty  in  strength, 
and  all  Jehovah's  hosts,  and  all  his  works  in  all  places 
of  his  dominion  to  join  in  the  ascription,  ends  as  he  be- 
gan, with  a  summons  to  himself,  "  Bless  the  Lord,  O  my 
soul."  A  more  artistic  and  elaborate  treatment  of  the 
same  theme  is  given  in  Psalm  cvii,  where  the  poet,  after 
the  usual  call  to  praise,  takes  up  in  succession  wanderers 
in  a  wilderness ;  people  in  captivity ;  men  drawn  near 
the  gates  of  death ;  seamen  in  a  storm,  and  sufferers  in 
drought  and  famine;  and  after  describing  their  peril  and 
their  deliverance  adds  in  each  case  the  joyful  refrain, 

"  O  that  men  would  praise  Jehovah  for  his  goodness. 
And  for  his  wonderful  works  to  the  children  of  men." 

The  several  cases  of  trial  and  perplexity  in  each  stanza 
are  wrought  out  with  exceeding  power  and  beauty,  but 
none  with  so  much  force  as  that  referring  to  them  that  do 
business  in  great  waters,  which  Mr.  Addison  said  is  the 
finest  description  of  a  storm  at  sea  he  had  ever  met  with  :. 

"  For  he  commandeth  and  raiseth  the  stormy  wind, 

Which  lifteth  up  tlie  waves  thereof. 

They  mount  up  to  the  heaven,  they  go  down  again  to  the  depths. 

Their  soul  melteth  away  because  of  trouble. 

They  reel  to  and  fro,  and  stagger  like  a  drunken  man, 

And  are  at  their  wits'  end. 

Then  they  cry  unto  Jehovah  in  their  trouble, 

And  he  bringeth  them  out  of  their  distresses." 


THE   BOOK    OF   PSALMS.  133 

(7.)  Imprecatory  Psalms.  There  are  twenty-five  in  all, 
but  the  chief  are  xxxv,  Hi,  lix,  Ixix,  cix,  cxxxvii. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  at  first  blush  these  seem  in- 
consistent with  the  ethics  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Hence  various  endeavors  to  explain  them  away,  as,  for 
example,  by  saying  that  the  verbs  may  be  translated  as 
futures  and  not  imperatives,  and  therefore  are  not  impre- 
cations but  predictions,  or  by  insisting  that  they  are  to  be 
spiritualized  and  considered  only  as  expressing  the  neces- 
sary results  of  unbelief  and  impenitence.  But  these  are 
mere  evasions  of  the  difficulty,  and  are  now  generalh- 
abandoned.  There  remain  two  methods  of  treating  these 
imprecations.  One  is  to  view  them  as  illustrating  the 
elementary  stage  of  ethical  development  peculiar  to  the 
Old  Testament,  and,  as  the  late  Bishop  Brooks  said,  "as 
.specimens  which  God  had  preserved  for  mankind's  in- 
struction of  the  horrible  wickedness  into  which  even  a 
worshiper  of  God,  a  man  who  tried  to  be  a  servant  of 
God,  was  liable  to  fall  if  he  did  not  watch  and  pray 
against  his  besetting  temptation."  The  other  regards 
them  as  utterances  of  a  mind  in  full  sympathy  with  God's 
righteous  government,  and  expressions  of  this  rather  than 
of  personal  malevolence. 

Which  of  these  two  methods  of  explanation  is  to  be 
preferred  is  a  matter  of  equal  importance  and  difficulty, 
and  the  more  as  there  is  a  wide  difference  of  opinion  on 
the  point  among  men  of  equal  piety,  abilit}',  and  learning. 
I  defer  the  expression  of  my  own  view,  as  the  question 
will  require  to  be  treated  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
authority  of  the  Psalter.  For  the  matter  cannot  be  con- 
sidered apart  from  the  general  character  and  claims  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  Psalter  is  such  a  conspicuous 
and  exemplary  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and 
the  imprecations  of  evil  upon  notorious  transgressors  are 
so  many  and  so  deeply  inwoven   in  the  texture  of  these 


134  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

divine  lyrics,  that  the  two  can  with  difficulty,  if  at  all,  be 
separated.  A  definitive  judgment  on  the  case  must  have 
far-reaching  consequences,  and  should  not  be  rendered 
without  long  and  careful  deliberation. 

(8.)  The  Hallel.  This  is  a  term  applied,  according  to 
Jewish  tradition,  to  the  six  psalms  preceding  the  119th 
(cxiii-cxviii),  which  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  sing  at 
their  celebrations  of  the  great  yearly  feasts.  It  is  gener- 
ally, and  I  think  reasonably,  supposed  that  it  was  one  of 
these  that  was  sung  by  our  Lord  and  his  disciples,  as 
recorded  by  Matthew  (xxvi,  30),  just  before  they  left  the 
paschal  chamber  to  go  out  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.  It 
would  be  pleasant  if  we  were  able  to  say  just  what  mem- 
ber of  the  Hallel  was  chosen  on  this  most  interesting 
occasion.  But  it  is  manifest  that  if  our  Lord  at  the  first 
institution  of  the  great  commemorative  ordinance  of  the 
Christian  Church  sang  one  of  the  praise  songs  of  Israel 
it  is  altogether  becoming  in  his  followers  when,  in  obe- 
dience to  his  command,  they  celebrate  the  feast,  in  like 
manner  to  lift  their  voices  in  sacred  song. 

(9.)  HaUchijali  Psalms.  The  last  five  in  the  collection 
bear  this  name  from  the  fact  that  they  (in  common  with 
the  io6th,  113th,  117th,  and  135th)  begin  and  end  with 
the  word  HallelujaJi,  the  anglicized  form  of  the  Hebrew 
phrase  rendered  "  Praise  ye  the  Lord."  This  term  prop- 
erly expresses  the  keynote  of  each  composition.  All 
these  psalms  vary  in  contents  and  circumstantials,  but 
they  agree  in  tone.  They  recite  the  reasons  why  men 
should  magnify  Jehovah's  name.  Thus  they  serve  a 
most  important  purpose  in  giving  emphasis  to  the  work 
of  praise.  The  tendency  among  many  otherwise  excel- 
lent and  useful  Christians  is  to  undervalue  the  vocal  utter- 
ance of  Jehovah's  perfection  and  grace.  This  is  most 
unhappy.  We  are  prone  to  imitate  what  we  sincerely 
admire  and  magnify.     To  repeat  on  earth  the  hallelu- 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  I35 

jahs  of  heaven  is  appropriate  and  inspiring.  It  is  well, 
therefore,  that  the  Psalter  should  wind  up  with  a  series  of 
examples  of  the  most  varied  and  earnest  praise,  and  that 
its  final  utterance  should  be, 

"  Let  everything  that  hath  breath  praise  Jehovah." 

The  man  who  once  found  fault  with  a  minister's  adora- 
tion in  prayer,  saying  he  spent  too  much  time  in  telling 
God  what  he  is,  must  bring  the  same  objection  against 
the  psalmists  of  Israel. 

(10.)  Messianic.  The  last  class  to  be  mentioned,  and 
in  some  respects  the  most  important,  is  those  which  refer 
to  the  Messiah.  Of  late  the  question  has  been  raised,  and 
in  some  cases  eagerly  debated,  whether  there  are  such 
psalms.  But  to  devout  readers  of  the  New  Testament 
this  is  no  question  at  all.  Our  blessed  Lord,  Luke  tells 
us  (xxiv,  44),  said  to  his  disciples  that  "  all  things  must 
needs  be  fulfilled,  which  are  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms,  concerning  me."  The 
Psalter  then  does  refer  to  him.     This  it  does  in  two  ways. 

{a)  There  is  repeated  reference  to  the  establishment 
of  God's  kingdom  on  earth  amid  all  nations.  This  is 
seen  everywhere  throughout  the  collection,  but  especially 
in  a  little  fasciculus  of  lyrics  preceding  the  looth  Psalm 
(xcvi-xcix).  The  Lord  reigneth,  and  all  the  earth  is 
summoned  to  rejoice  in  the  fact.  He  cometh,  he  cometh, 
to  judge  the  earth.  All  peoples  are  to  see  his  glory,  and 
all  the  ends  of  the  earth  his  salvation.  This  worldwide 
sovereignty  is  evidently  different  from  the  lordship  which 
God  as  God  continual!}^  and  inherently  exercises.  It 
means  a  visible  divine  administration  recognized  by  men 
and  made  by  them  a  theme  of  joyful  praise.  This  con- 
ception of  a  widely  extended  kingdom  of  God  upon  the 
earth  is  found  frequently  in  the  Psalter  as  an  incidental 
statement.     For  example,  in  the  Eighty-seventh  Psalm, 


136  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

where,  after  the  statement  that  glorious  things  are  written 
of  the  city  of  God,  the  poet  adds  this  divine  utterance  : 

"  I  will  make  mention  of  Rahab  and  Babylon  as  among  them  that  know  me  : 
Behold  Philistia  and  Tyre  with  Ethiopia  ; 
This  one  was  born  there." 

Here  the  incorporation  of  Israel's  hereditary  enemies 
with  the  covenant  people  is  expressly  foretold.  Jehovah 
himself  shall  register  the  greatest  of  worldly  empires  as 
born  in  Zion,  so  that  the  holy  hill  becomes  the  spiritual 
birthplace  of  nations. 

The  reason  for  calling  all  lyrics  of  this  class  Messianic 
is  contained  in  the  fact  that  the  only  possible  conception 
the  Jews  could  form  of  this  prospect  as  a  blessed  reality 
was  in  connection  with  another  and  more  definite  class 
of  predictions  pointing  to  a  single  personage  through 
whom  such  results  were  to  be  gained. 

(d)  Of  this  person  there  are  several  very  spirited  utter- 
ances. In  the  Second  Psalm  the  Israelites  were  taught 
to  sing  of  him  as  the  Son  of  God,  anointed  King  upon 
Zion's  holy  hill,  against  whom  the  nations  rage  in  vain, 
for  he  dashes  them  in  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel ;  and 
therefore  it  is  the  interest  of  all,  whatever  their  station 
or  dignity,  to  make  terms  with  him.  In  another  psalm 
(the  forty-fifth)  the  personal  excellence  as  well  as  the  vic- 
torious power  of  this  king  is  celebrated.  Grace  is  poured 
into  his  lips.  He  is  fairer  than  the  children  of  men.  He 
loves  righteousness  and  hates  iniquity,  and  therefore  is 
crowned  with  glory  above  his  fellows.  In  yet  another 
lyric  (the  seventy-second)  he  is  set  forth  as  a  most  gracious 
sovereign  who  comes  down  as  rain  upon  the  mown  grass, 
as  showers  that  water  the  earth.  He  has  dominion  from 
sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
Kings  fall  down  before  him,  and  far-off  tribes  bring  their 
presents.  And  this  is  to  continue  so  long  as  the  sun  and 
moon  endure.     The  series  of  psalms  of  this  nature  winds 


THE   BOOK    OF   PSALMS.  1 37 

up  with  a  short  song  which  represents  him  as  at 
Jehovah's  right  hand,  as  going  forth  at  the  head  of  a 
wilhng  host,  numerous  and  fresh  as  the  drops  of  the 
dew,  and  his  enemies  are  made  his  footstool ;  and  yet 
he  is  a  priest  upon  his  throne,  a  priest  of  a  pecuHar 
order,  wholly  different  from  the  ordinary  occupants  of 
the  office,  who  are  mortal,  and  when  death  occurs 
give  place  to  others,  while  this  man,  made  after  the 
power  of  an  endless  life,  has  no  successors,  but  is  a  priest 
forever. 

These  psalms  and  others  like  them  represent  the  Mes- 
siah in  his  exaltation,  and  speak  in  the  most  glowing 
terms  of  his  personal  dignity  and  boundless  empire. 
They  cannot  possibly  be  explained  of  any  mere  human 
or  earthly  monarch.  Oriental  splendor  of  diction  will 
account  for  much  of  the  language  of  poets  and  prophets, 
but  it  fails  to  give  a  satisfactory  reason  for  the  ascription 
of  such  excellence,  power,  and  glory  as  these  psalms 
declare  to  belong  to  God's  anointed. 

Besides  these  there  is  another  class  of  lyrics  which  cor- 
respond to  the  phrase  of  the  apostle  Peter  (i  Peter  i,  1 1) 
when  he  says  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  the 
prophets  "  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and 
the  glories  that  should  follow  them."  The  Twenty-second 
Psalm  sets  forth  a  "  sufferer  whose  wail  is  the  very  voice 
of  desolation  and  despair,  and  who  yet  dares  to  believe 
that  the  tale  of  his  sorrow  will  be  a  gospel  for  the  world  " 
(McLaren).  The  picture  of  pain  and  sadness  is  painted 
in  the  liveliest  strokes.  Desertion,  dejection,  bodily 
anguish,  reproach,  and  mockery  do  their  worst,  yet  at 
last  the  sufferer  is  rescued  from  the  dog's  power,  the 
lion's  mouth,  the  wild  oxen's  horns,  and  the  deliverance 
is  followed  by  the  most  striking  results. 

"  All  the  ends  of  the  eartli  remember  and  turn  unto  Jehovah, 
And  all  tlie  kindreds  of  the  nations  shall  worship  before  thee." 


138  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  numerous  and  minute  correspondences  between 
this  lyric  and  the  gospel  account  of  our  Lord's  crucifix- 
ion cannot  be  accounted  for  in  any  other  way  than  by 
supposing  that  the  singer  was  guided  by  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  so  that,  whatever  the  immediate  purpose  of  his 
psalm,  he  did  set  forth  a  likeness  of  the  suffering  Mes- 
siah, Other  psalms  (xli,  9;  Ixix,  9,  20,  21)  exhibit  the 
treachery  by  which  the  Saviour  should  be  betrayed,  the 
ferocious  taunts  he  should  endure,  the  complete  isolation 
in  which  he  should  be  involved,  but  at  the  same  time 
clearly  indicate  that  all  this  should  be  followed  by  deliv- 
erance and  triumph.  In  these  latter  lyrics  there  are  cir- 
cumstances, especially  the  confessions  of  sin,  which  have 
no  sort  of  application  to  Him  "  who  did  no  sin,  neither  was 
guile  found  in  his  mouth."  Hence  it  is  natural  to  con- 
clude that  in  the  first  instance  such  expressions  of  moral 
infirmity  applied  only  to  the  original  human  speaker,  and 
that  in  the  other  specific  portions  he  uttered  what  was 
not  only  true  of  his  own  experience,  but  also  bore  a 
typical  reference  to  Him  who  was  to  come.  They  who 
deny  or  doubt  the  possibility  of  such  a  typical  reference 
do  not  wisely  consider  the  teaching  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews. 

Thus  was  set  forth  before  the  eyes  of  the  ancient 
Church  a  prophetic  outline  of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
were  to  be  blessed,  and  that  both  in  his  states  of  humili- 
ation and  exaltation.  That  the  voice  of  prophecy  here 
and  elsewhere  fulfilled  its  purpose  is  plain  from  the  whole 
history  of  Israel  and  from  the  popular  expectation  that 
prevailed  in  the  time  of  our  Lord's  personal  ministry. 
The  Jews  consulted  by  Herod,  the  woman  of  Samaria  at 
Jacob's  well,  Martha  of  Bethany,  and  the  general  body 
of  the  people  looked  for  the  coming  of  Messiah.  That 
they  fixed  attention  more  upon  his  glory  than  his  suffer- 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  1 39 

ings,  that  they  rather  expected  a  mighty  conqueror  than 
a  wise  teacher,  is  easily  explained  from  the  general  tend- 
ency of  our  nature,  and  does  not  at  all  hinder  our  faith 
that  the  songs  of  Zion  nurtured  the  blessed  hope  that 
survived  all  the  sore  trials  of  the  ancient  Church  and  held 
the  people  intact  and  unmixed  till  the  fulfillment  came. 

A  current  modern  fad  is,  in  the  face  of  the  clear  and 
positive  statements  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  and  the 
well-nigh  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Christian  Church 
from  the  beginning,  to  deny  the  Messianic  character  of 
the  psalms  referred  to,  and  to  hold  that  they  were  uttered 
in  relation  to  some  merely  human  monarch.  Thus  the 
magnificent  iioth  Psalm,  oftener  quoted  in  the  New- 
Testament  than  any  other,  and  made  the  basis  of  a 
strong  argument  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is  said 
to  have  been  fulfilled  in  one  of  the  Maccabees ;  and  the 
forty-fifth,  with  its  wondrous  delineation  of  Messiah's 
personal  excellencies  and  the  brilliant  description  of  the 
Church,  is  represented  as  an  epithalamium  for  one  of  the 
Egyptian  Ptolemies.  To  mention  these  follies  is  to  refute 
them.  One  wonders  how  any  literary  man  with  a  spark  of 
taste  in  his  composition,  and  still  more  how  any  Christian 
man  with  any  reverence  in  his  soul,  could  for  a  moment 
consent  to  such  a  degradation  of  the  oracles  of  God. 

( 1 1 .)  Some  Exceptional  Psaluis.  There  are  certain  lyrics 
which  refuse  to  be  classed,  since  they  have  a  peculiar  and 
unapproachable  excellence  of  their  own.  One  of  these  is 
the  Psalm  of  Faith,  the  twenty-third,  called  "  the  night- 
ingale of  the  Psalter  —  small  and  of  a  homely  feather, 
but  filling  the  air  of  the  whole  world  with  a  melodious 
joy."  It  is  remarkable  for  simplicity  and  beauty  of  form 
united  with  a  spirit  of  heavenly  peace  and  confidence. 
It  appeals  with  equal  force  to  the  most  learned  and  the 
unlettered.  "  It  is  the  pure  utterance  of  personal  trust 
in  Jehovah,  darkened  by  no  fears  or  complaints,  and  so 


140  ANTI-HIGHKR   CRITICISM. 

perfectly  at  rest  that  it  has  nothing  more  to  ask."  The 
strains  of  Theocritus  are  considered  the  finest  specimens 
of  pastoral  poetry  in  all  the  ancient  world,  but  there  is 
a  beauty  and  grace  in  this  utterance  of  the  sweet  singer 
of  Israel  which  the  Sicilian  poet  does  not  even  approach, 
while  the  sentiment  is  as  much  above  Theocritus  as  the 
heavens  are  above  the  earth. 

Another,  the  139th,  has  for  its  theme  the  exhaustive 
knowledge  of  God,  which  it  first  asserts  in  the  strongest 
terms,  and  then  illustrates  on  one  hand  by  a  poetic  de- 
lineation of  the  presence  of  God  in  all  parts  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  on  the  other  by  his  personal  concern  in  the 
mysterious  formation  of  the  human  frame  in  the  earliest 
stages  of  its  being.  Before  One  endowed  with  such 
knowledge  the  singer  bows  in  deep  humility,  and  prays 
to  be  led  by  him  in  the  way  of  peace.  This  psalm,  con- 
sidered as  a  mere  literary  composition,  has  won  universal 
commendation.  No  such  picture  of  the  divine  omni- 
presence has  ever  been  drawn  by  any  human  hand : 

"  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit  ? 

Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence? 

If  I  ascend  up  unto  heaven,  thou  art  there: 

If  I  make  my  bed  in  Sheol,  behold,  thou  art  there. 

If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  dawn, 

And  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea; 

Even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me, 

And  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me." 

But  mark  how  the  reach  of  thought  and  the  flights  of 
imagination  are  subordinated  to  a  spiritual  and  practical 
end.  None  of  these  exquisite  touches  are  inserted  for 
their  own  sake,  but  to  give  point  and  precision  to  the 
closing  prayer  : 

"  Search  me,  O  God,  and  know  my  heart : 
Try  me  and  know  my  thoughts  : 
And  see  if  there  be  any  way  of  wickedness  in  me, 
And  lead  me  in  the  way  everlasting." 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  I4I 

A  third,  the  sixty-eighth,  has  generally  been  considered 
the  highest  in  poetic  merit  in  the  whole  collection.  The 
text  has  apparently  suffered  in  places,  and  there  are  por- 
tions of  it  which  it  is  difficult  to  understand,  but  the 
general  sense  is  so  clear  as  to  win  for  it  universal  favor. 
There  is  no  space  to  give  an  analysis.  It  is  remarkable 
for  its  energy  and  boldness,  its  wealth  of  historic  allusion, 
its  rapid  movement,  its  brilliant  imagery,  its  sustained 
elevation,  its  far-reaching  outlook,  its  lofty  devotion  and 
triumphant  faith.  Yet  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  lofty  flight 
of  poetical  genius  by  no  means  interferes  with  the  flow 
of  pious  feeling.  The  most  glowing,  the  most  spirited, 
the  most  powerful  hymn  in  the  entire  Psalter  is  at 
the  same  time  the  one  most  alive  with  faith  and  conse- 
cration. 

"  The  father  of  orphans,  and  defender  of  widows, 
Is  God  in  his  holy  dwelling  (verse  5). 
Blessed  be  God,  who  daily  beareth  our  burden. 
The  Mighty  One  who  is  our  salvation  (verse  19). 
Blessed  be  God  "  (verse  35). 

Such,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  Psalter.  It  is  a  collec- 
tion of  one  hundred  and  fifty  poems,  some  long  and 
others  short,  written  at  various  times  and  by  various 
authors,  but  all  lyrical  in  form  and  all  intensely  religious 
in  their  tone.  They  cover  a  very  wide  field.  Some- 
times they  recount  the  past,  and  others  describe  the 
present,  or  again  foretell  the  future.  Sometimes  they 
are  objective,  dwelling  on  the  manifestations  of  God  in 
creation  and  providence  ;  at  others  they  are  strictly  sub- 
jective, unfolding  with  wondrous  acuteness  and  accuracy 
the  workings  of  the  individual  heart.  Now  we  hear 
jubilant  notes  sounding  like  an  angelic  chorus ;  again 
there  is  a  pathos  of  indescribable  depth  and  tenderness. 
There  are  delineations  of  character  and  destiny  which 
exhaust  the  possibilities  of  language.  First  set  forth 
10 


142  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ages  ago  by  men  who  lived  under  a  Syrian  sky  and  were 
trained  under  oriental  influences,  they  bear  the  ear- 
marks of  their  origin,  and  yet  are  found  to  meet  the 
wants  of  every  age  and  race  and  country.  They  were 
the  song  book  of  the  ancient  Hebrews;  they  are  equally 
the  song  book  of  the  modern  Christian.  Men  of  aesthetic 
taste  admire  them  for  sublimity,  pathos,  beauty,  or  other 
literary  excellence,  but  believers  love  them  for  their 
spiritual  character,  for  their  power  to  express  the  var)'- 
ing  states  of  religious  experience,  for  their  revelations 
of  God's  nature,  for  the  comfort,  the  stimulus,  the  refresh- 
ment which  they  provide.  Nor  does  it  make  any  differ- 
ence as  to  the  mental  grasp  or  literary  culture  of  the 
Christian.  These  divine-human  compositions  are  suited 
to  every  grade  of  intellect  or  culture. 

One  of  the  greatest  statesmen  and  orators  of  our  coun- 
try a  number  of  years  ago  soothed  his  dying  moments 
with  the  Twenty-third  Psalm  ;  and  not  long  afterward  a 
poor  negro  boy,  when  sinking  into  the  grave,  had  it 
read  in  his  hearing.     When  the  verse 

"  Yea,  though  I  walk  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death, 
I  will  fear  no  evil ;  for  thou  art  with  me : 
Thy  rod  and  thy  staff,  they  comfort  me," 

was  reached  he  at  once  cried  out,  "  How  sweet  I  O,  read 
that  again  !  "  It  was  read  again  and  yet  again,  and  in  its 
spirit  he  folded  his  arms  and  went  to  his  last  earthly  sleep. 
We  know  nothing  about  these  lyric  poems  save  what 
their  contents  or  titles  may  indicate.  Beyond  these 
points  tradition  is  absolutely  silent.  But  we  need  noth- 
ing more.  The  Psalms  tell  their  own  story  and  do  their 
own  work.  Rendered  into  any  language,  among  any 
people,  they  arrest  attention,  they  engage  interest,  they 
respond  to  the  deepest  needs,  the  strongest  feelings,  of 
a  soul  awakened  by  divine  grace.  They  are  concerned 
with  what  is  elementary  and  universal  in  human  nature, 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  143 

and  therefore  are  commensurate  with  the  wants  of  the 
race.  For  more  than  twice  a  thousand  years  they  have 
been  the  companion  and  the  solace  of  the  devout  heart, 
and  such  they  will  continue  to  be  while  the  world 
stands. 


144  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


THE  BOOK  OF  PSALMS. 


BY  TALBOT  VV.  CHAMBERS,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Senior  Minister  of  the  Collegiate  Dutch  Church  of  New  York. 


II. 

THE   AUTHORITY   OF   THE   PSALTER   AND   ITS   USES. 

I.  TJie  Authority  of  the  Psalter.  The  authority  of  the 
Psalter  depends  upon  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  especially  named  by  our  Lord  as  a  part  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  it  is  frequently  quoted  by  him  and 
his  apostles  as  the  word  of  God.  At  the  conclusion  of 
their  last  paschal  meal  they  sang  one  of  its  psalms. 
When  our  Lord  on  the  cross  gave  utterance  to  his  sense 
of  complete  isolation  and  abandonment  he  used  the 
words  of  David  in  the  Twenty-second  Psalm,  and  when 
at  the  end  he  yielded  up  his  spirit  it  was  in  the  words  of 
the  sweet  singer  as  recorded  in  Psalm  xxxi,  5. 

How  and  when  the  collection  of  the  one  hundred  and 
fifty  lyrics  into  one  volume  was  made  we  are  not  in- 
formed. The  tradition  universally  accepted  by  Jews  and 
Christians  until  recent  times  assigns  this  work  to  Ezra, 
"  the  priest,  the  scribe,  even  the  scribe  of  the  words  of 
the  commandments  of  Jehovah  and  his  statutes  to  Israel  " 
(Ezra  vii,  1 1).  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  tradition.  The  time,  the  place,  the 
character  of  the  man,  and  the  needs  of  the  people  all 
concur  in  its  support.  It  has  been  vehemently  assailed 
of  late  on  the  ground  of  its  inconsistency  with  the  modern 
view  of  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch.     If  no  part  of  the 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  I45 

five  books  of  Moses  assumed  its  present  form  until  after 
the  eighth  century  B.  C,  and  the  whole  Pentateuch  as  it 
stands  was  of  post-exilic  origin,  then  of  course  the  Psal- 
ter must  be  supposed  to  have  originated  within  the  same 
narrow  limits.  Hence  we  are  told  with  great  confidence 
that  it  was  the  hymn  book  of  the  second  temple,  that  it 
was  from  time  to  time  enlarged,  and  was  not  completed 
until  the  days  of  the  Maccabees.  But  there  is  as  much 
evidence  that  the  Psalter  was  used  at  the  dedication  of 
the  first  temple  (2  Chron.  vii,  6)  as  there  is  that  it  was 
used  at  the  dedication  of  the  second  (Ezra  iii,  10,  ii). 

To  me  this  whole  theory  of  the  late  origin  of  the  Psal- 
ter seems  a  baseless  dream. 

(i.)  It  is  opposed  to  the  voice  of  tradition — a  tradi- 
tion every  way  reasonable  in  itself,  and  accepted  with- 
out demur  for  hundreds  and  thousands  of  years.  After 
Malachi  the  voice  of  prophecy  ceased.  What  more 
natural  than  that  -its  preexisting  utterances  should  be 
gathered  together  and  be  made  accessible  as  the  guide 
of  life  and  the  charter  of  hope  ?  And  who  could  have 
been  better  able  to  perform  this  work  than  one  who  is 
spoken  of  as  "a  ready  scribe  in  the  l^w  of  Moses" 
(Ezra  vii,  6).  Ezra  had  the  requisite  learning,  ability, 
and  conscientiousness  for  the  work  ;  nor  is  there  anything 
in  his  recorded  career  which  is  at  all  inconsistent  with 
his  doing  it.  The  collection  cannot  have  been  acciden- 
tal. The  perfection  of  its  character,  including  all  that 
was  needed  and  excluding  whatever  was  unsuited  for 
public  or  private  worship,  forbids  peremptorily  any  such 
opinion.  Who  but  a  divinely  guided  teacher  could  have 
done  the  work,  and  who  so  suitable  for  it  as  the  learned 
scribe,  Ezra  ? 

(2.)  It  is  opposed  to  the  superscriptions  of  the  Psalms. 
The  great  majority  of  the  lyrics  (116)  have  titles  prefixed 
to  them,  only  thirty-four  being  "orphans,"  as  the  Jews 


146  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

called  them,  that  is,  without  a  recognized  paternity.  Now, 
of  those  that  are  inscribed,  seventy-three  are  given  to 
David,  two  to  Solomon,  twelve  to  Asaph,  eleven  to  the 
sons  of  Korah  (but  whether  they  were  authors  or  only 
musicians  is  not  clear),  one  to  Heman  the  Ezrahite, 
and  one  to  Ethan  the  Ezrahite.  It  is  common  in  our 
day  to  discard  all  these  titles  as  entirely  destitute  of 
authority.    But  I  maintain  the  contrary  for  these  reasons  : 

(a)  The  titles  are  found  in  all  existing  manuscripts 
of  the  Psalter.  There  is  not  a  solitary  exception  to  this 
rule. 

{d)  They  are  retained  in  the  oldest  versions,  such  as 
the  Septuagint,  and  are  recognized  in  the  Chaldee  Para- 
phrase. 

(c)  The  instances  of  David  (2  Sam.  i,  17,  18),  of 
Hezekiah  (Isa.  xxxviii,  9),  and  of  Habakkuk  (iii,  i) 
are  sufficient  to  show  that  it  was  the  custom  for  authors 
to  prefix  their  names  to  their  poems. 

(d)  The  chief  objection  against  them  is  really  in  their 
favor,  to  wit,  the  apparent  difficulty  of  harmonizing  them 
in  some  cases  with  the  contents  of  the  psalm  to  which 
they  are  prefixed.  For  if  they  had  been  invented  by 
unauthorized  persons  would  not  these  inventors  have 
taken  pains  to  give  verisimilitude  to  their  inventions  by 
adapting  them  to  the  purport  of  the  psalms  ? 

{e)  What  else  than  their  traditionary  origin  can  ac- 
count for  the  seemingly  capricious  manner  in  which  the 
titles  are  distributed  through  the  book?  If  of  editorial 
manufacture  how  are  We  to  explain  the  fact  that  we  fail 
to  see  them  where  they  might  be  expected  and  find  them 
where  they  are  not  looked  for?  Would  not  self-ap- 
pointed revisers  have  treated  the  whole  book  alike  ?  It 
is  far  more  natural  and  reasonable  to  suppose  that  all 
the  psalms  were  at  first  inscribed  with  the  names  of  their 
authors,  and  that  in  the  cases  where  the  titles  are  miss- 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  I47 

ing  that  fact  is  due  either  to  the  carelessness  of  tran- 
scribers or  to  some  mischance. 

(/")  In  two  cases  these  titles  mention  persons  and 
events  not  recorded  in  Scripture.  Psalm  vii  is  said 
to  have  been  sung  by  David  "  concerning  the  words  of 
Cush  a  Benjamite,"  and  Psalm  Ix,  on  the  occasion 
"  when  he  strove  with  Aram-naharaim  and  with  Aram- 
zobah,  and  Joab  returned,  and  smote  of  Edom  in  the 
Valley  of  Salt  twelve  thousand."  Is  it  likely  that  any 
devout  Jew  would  invent  an  enemy  of  David  and  an  ex- 
pedition of  Joab,  and  insert  them  in  a  book  he  was  taught 
to  hold  sacred  ?  Is  it  not  far  more  reasonable  to  believe 
that  the  person  and  the  event  were  both  of  them  real, 
and  belong  to  that  large  portion  of  Hebrew  history 
which  was  not  recorded  ? 

(3.)  The  post-exilic  origin  of  the  Psalter  is  opposed  to 
its  contents.  There  are,  as  we  have  seen,  historical 
psalms,  but  these  all  stop  in  their  narrative  at  the  acces- 
sion of  David.  The  only  reason  to  be  assigned  for  this 
fact  is  that  the  lyrics  were  composed  at  that  period. 
Had  they  originated  at  a  later  period  the  remarkable 
interpositions  of  Jehovah  in  the  time  of  Asa,  or  of  Elijah 
and  Elisha,  or  of  Hezekiah,  would  have  found  a  place. 
Undoubtedly  there  are  psalms  of  the  exile  (cxxxvii, 
Ixxiv,  Ixxix),  but  there  se'ems  not  the  least  reason  to 
relegate  the  entire  collection  to  the  post-exilic  period, 
nor  even  to  assign  any  to  the  age  of  the  Maccabees, 
because  the  previous  experience  of  the  people  will  satisfy 
the  terms  of  any  of  the  lyrics  which  seem  to  be  appro- 
priate to  what  the  people  suffered  under  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  The  Maccabean  period  was  remarkable  for 
the  valor  and  the  constancy  of  the  Jews,  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  either  literature  or  piety  flourished  in  any 
unwonted  degree,  and  in  neither  respect  do  the  apocry- 
phal books  compare  with  what  we  have  in  the  canon. 


I4B  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

And  one  may  well  ask,  If  the  Psalms  as  a  whole  or  any 
of  them  are  of  late  date,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  they 
differ  so  decidedly  from  the  other  productions  of  that 
period  ?  The  apocryphal  books  are  disowned  by  all 
Protestants,  not  only  because  they  never  composed  part 
of  the  Palestinian  canon,  but  because  their  internal 
character  is  a  fatal  objection.  They  bear  marks  of  human 
infirmity  either  in  subject  or  treatment  or  ethical  bear- 
ing. Now  we  require  to  know  how  the  singers  of  that 
period  came  to  escape  this  contagion.  That  they  did 
escape  it  is  certain.  Not  one  piece  in  the  entire  Psalter 
deviates  from  the  fixed  standard  of  canonical  Scripture. 
It  seems  then  to  be  a  reasonable  conclusion  that  none  of 
them  originated  in  a  period  when  the  voice  of  prophecy 
had  ceased,  and  men  were  left  without  inspiration  alike 
in  their  speaking  and  their  writing.  Their  exalted  char- 
acter requires  that  we  should  consider  them  as  belonging 
.to  that  age  when  "men  spake  from  God,  being  borne 
along  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  names  of  persons,  places,  and  events,  as  found  in 
the  Psalter,  are  all  in  accordance  with  the  traditional 
view  of  its  origin,  and  not  at  all  with  the  modern  opinion 
so  confidently  repeated.  Neither  in  the  titles  nor  in  the 
contents  of  the  various  psalms  is  there  any  reference 
which  indicates  a  very  late  period  save  in  the  few  lyrics 
which  were  composed  after  the  capture  of  city  and  peo- 
ple by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Nor  is  the  type  of  piety  other 
in  one  portion  of  the  Psalter  than  it  is  in  another.  The 
religious  experience  is  the  same  as  to  joy  and  sorrow,  as 
to  confession  and  penitence,  as  to  praise  and  hope. 
There  are  individual  peculiarities  in  each  lyric,  but  none 
which  mark  off  any  portion  of  the  collection  as  showing 
a  modified  theolog)'.  A  devout,  earnest,  spiritual  tone 
runs  through  the  entire  Psalter  from  beginning  to  end. 
It  contains  the  world's  deepest,  tenderest,  and  most  artis- 


The  book  of  psalms.  149 

tic  poetry,  but  the  poetry  of  men  lifted  above  themselves 
by  the  divine  Spirit. 

(4.)  Much  of  the  criticism  relied  upon  to  establish  the 
late  date  of  the  Psalter  is  arbitrary  and  unreasonable. 
Psalms,  it  is  said,  which  belong  together  have  been  torn 
apart  (xlii  and  xliii),  and  others  which  have  no  inward 
connection  have  been  violently  made  into  one.  Thus  the 
fine  Nineteenth  Psalm  is  said  to  be  made  up  of  two  parts 
wholly  different  in  theme,  tone,  and  style ;  whereas  a 
sober  criticism  maintains  that  the  lyric  as  it  stands  is  an 
exquisite,  homogeneous,  and  self-consistent  production, 
celebrating  first  the  glory  of  God  as  it  speaks  out  of  the 
heavens  to  all  the  earth,  then  the  more  excellent  revela- 
tion contained  in  the  law,  and  finally  uttering  appropri- 
ate reflections  and  prayers  in  the  case.  Not  to  see  and 
feel  this  as  it  lies  on  the  face  of  the  sacred  song  is  to  show 
lack  of  intellectual  insight  as  well  as  of  pious  sensibility. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  common  treatment  of  the  Twenty- 
fourth  Psalm,  which  is  said  to  be  made  up  of  two  entirely 
incongruous  portions,  one  the  account  of  the  acceptable 
worshiper,  the  other  a  summons  to  the  old  sanctuary  to 
admit  the  presence  of  its  Lord,  the  King  of  glory.  What 
has  become  of  men's  taste  or  imagination,  that  they  devise 
so  monstrous  a  theory  as  to  affirm  that  these  two  parts 
are  fragments  which,  after  floating  about  a  long  time 
separately,  were  seized  and  welded  together  by  some 
senseless  poetaster?  The  usual  explanation  of  the  psalm 
is  natural,  reasonable,  and  edifying.  David  first  describes 
what  sort  of  a  man  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the  Lord, 
and  then  bursts  forth  into  an  exuberant  account  of  Jeho- 
vah's entrance  into  his  house.  The  two  parts,  so  far  from 
being  inconsistent  or  contradictory,  beautifully  comple- 
ment each  other  and  constitute  a  lyric  which  has  no 
superior  for  beauty  and  sublimity  either  in  or  out  of  the 
Scripture.     So  in  regard  to  the  close  correspondence  in 


150  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

theme  and  tone  between  Psalms  xlii  and  xliii,  it  is  insisted 
that  these  originally  formed  but  one  lyric,  and  were  vio- 
lently and  needlessly  sundered.  But  it  is  equally  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  Psalm  xlii  was  first  composed  and 
set  forth  as  a  whole,  to  which  afterward  the  author  com- 
posed a  pendant  in  the  same  spirit  but  upon  another 
occasion,  and  therefore  set  it  forth  independently.  I 
maintain  that  as  much  can  be  said  in  favor  of  this  hy- 
pothesis as  of  the  other,  and  that  it  is  far  more  respectful 
and  reverent. 

The  attempt  to  override  all  tradition  and  determine 
the  age  of  any  particular  lyric  from  its  contents  is  neces- 
sarily arbitrary  save  in  a  very  few  well-marked  cases,  such 
as  those  which  recite  the  destruction  of  the  temple  or  the 
suffering  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon.  It  lies  in  the  very 
nature  of  a  spiritual  composition  intended  for  devotional 
use  that  it  should  be  independent  of  time  and  place.  It 
seizes  upon  the  broad  outlines  of  the  soul's  experience, 
and  recites  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  fitted  for  the 
edification  of  others  at  all  times  and  in  all  places.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  testimony  of  eighteen  centuries  certifies  us 
that  the  usefulness  of  a  psalm  docs  not  depend  in  the 
smallest  degree  upon  the  ability  of  the  reader  or  singer 
to  determine  when  or  by  whom  it  was  composed.  This 
result,  we  believe,  was  contemplated  from  the  beginning. 
Hence  endeavors  to  settle  dates  are  and  must  be  mere 
conjectures,  and  often  are  injurious  rather  than  helpful. 

Nor  can  any  reliance  be  based  on  linguistic  differences. 
The  style  of  the  Psalter  corresponds  to  the  period  of  its 
alleged  composers.  No  such  differences  of  words  or 
structure  can  be  found  in  it  as  occur  in,  say,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  mark  it  almost  necessarily  as  of  late  date.  It  is  true 
that  the  139th  Psalm,  which  the  title  ascribes  to  David, 
has  numerous  Aramaic  forms,  yet  it  cannot  with  any  pro- 
priety be  said  to  be  written  in  ■a.  patois.     Its  peculiarities 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  I5I 

of  verbal  and  pronominal  forms  may  very  reasonably  be 
ascribed  to  the  fashions  of  copyists,  nor  in  any  case  is  a 
linguistic  difference  of  this  kind  a  trustworthy  index  to 
the  date  of  a  composition.  Western  Aramaic  is  certainly, 
as  everyone  knows,  a  different  dialect  from  Hebrew,  but 
who  can  say  how  long  its  peculiarities  may  have  existed 
side  by  side  with  the  Hebrew  and,  at  times,  exerted  con- 
siderable influence  upon  the  classic  writers  of  Palestine? 
The  occurrence  of  Aramaic  forms  is  anything  but  a  de- 
cisive test  of  date  or  origin.  ^ 

(5.)  Modern  criticism  is  especially  to  be  deprecated 
in  its  treatment  of  the  psalms  ascribed  to  David.  To 
such  an  extent  has  this  tendency  gone  that  some  have 
denied  to  him  the  authorship  of  any  lyric  save  a  portion 
of  the  Eighteenth  Psalm.  This  is  inexcusable,  because 
we  know  from  unquestionable  authority  that  David  was 
both  a  poet  and  a  musician.  "  The  sweet  psalmist  of 
Israel  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii,  i)  seems  to  have  been  raised  up 
and  trained  to  be  an  organ  of  lyric  inspiration.  His 
whole  being  was  cultivated  by  a  variety  of  functions. 
As  Edward  Irving  tells  us,  "God  brought  him  up  in  the 
sheep  pastures  that  the  groundwork  of  his  character 
might  be  laid  through  simple  and  universal  forms  of  feel- 
ing. He  took  him  to  the  camp  that  he  might  be  filled 
with  nobleness  of  soul  and  ideas  of  glory.  He  placed  him 
in  the  palace  that  he  might  be  filled  with  ideas  of  maj- 
esty and  sovereign  might.  He  carried  him  to  the  wilder- 
ness and  placed  him  in  solitudes  that  his  soul  might  dwell 
alone  in  the  sublime  conception  of  God  and  his  mighty 
works.  And  he  kept  him  there  for  long  years  that  he 
might  be  well  schooled  to  trust  and  depend  upon  the 
providence  of  God.  And  in  none  of  these  varied  con- 
ditions did  he  take  from  him  his  Holy  Spirit.  His  trials 
were  but  the  tuning  of  the  instrument  with  which  the 
Spirit  might  express  the  various  melodies  which  he  de- 


15^  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

signed  to  utter  by  him  for  the  consolation  and  edification 
of  spiritual  men."  These  are  words  of  soberness  and 
truth.  And  they  show  the  fatuity  of  supposing  that 
this  fine  instrument,  so  exquisitely  and  carefully  fash- 
ioned for  the  purpose,  was  thrown  aside  and  the  songs 
of  Israel  left  to  be  sung  by  men  not  one  of  whom  had 
the  tenth  part  of  the  natural  and  acquired  gifts  of  the 
son  of  Jesse,  or  the  hundredth  part  of  his  wide  and  va- 
ried experience.  Far  more  reasonable  every  way  is  the 
common  faith  of  the  Church  that  David,  the  man  after 
God's  own  heart,  was  molded  by  his  temperament  and 
training  to  set  the  example  of  devotional  poetical  com- 
position and  furnish  the  pattern  to  guide  the  other  sing- 
ers whom  the  Lord  would  raise  up. 

The  Question  of  the  Impj-ecations.  There  is,  however, 
another  matter  touching  the  authority  of  the  Psalter 
which  has  not  sprung  from  modern  criticism,  but  has 
long  divided  the  opinions  of  the  religious  world.  This 
is  the  morality  of  the  imprecations.  Many  wise  and 
good  men  insist  that  these  are  expressions  of  human 
infirmity,  and  as  such  to  be  unsparingly  condemned. 
Thus  Dr.  McLaren  says  (i,  336)  of  these  passages; 
"  However  restricted,  they  express  a  state  of  feeling  far 
beneath  the  Christian,  and  the  attempt  to  slur  over  the 
contrast  is  in  danger  of  hiding  the  glory  of  midday  for 
fear  of  not  doing  justice  to  the  beauty  of  the  morning 
twilight.  It  is  true  that  the  imprecations  of  the  Psalter 
are  not  the  offspring  of  passion,  and  that  the  psalmists 
speak  as  identifying  their  cause  with  God's;  but  when 
all  such  considerations  are  taken  into  account  these 
prayers  against  enemies  remain  distinctly  inferior  to  the 
code  of  Christian  ethics.  The  more  frankly  the  fact  is 
recognized  the  better."  To  the  same  effect  he  says,  in 
remarking  on  Psalm  xxviii,  4 :  "  The  stern  tone  of  this 
prayer  marks  it  as  belonging  to  the  older  type  of  religion, 


THE    BOOK    OF    PSALMS.  1 53 

and  its  dissimilarity  to  the  New  Testament  teaching  is 
not  to  be  skirred  over.  No  doubt  the  element  of  per- 
sonal enmity  is  all  but  absent,  but  it  is  not  the  prayer 
which  those  who  have  heard  *  Father,  forgive  them,'  are 
to  copy"  (p.  271). 

The  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting  such  a 
view  of  these  imprecations  is  the  impossibility  of  ac- 
counting for  their  formal  incorporation  into  the  Songs  of 
Israel,  the  service  book  of  the  Old  Testament  Church, 
the  devotional  manual  of  all  believers.  If  they  are  ex- 
pressions of  personal  hate,  the  offspring  of  unhallowed 
passion,  why  were  they  made  a  constituent  part  of  the 
divine  directory  of  worship  ?  And  why  are  they  quoted 
in  the  New  Testament  equally  with  the  others  as  of 
divine  authority?  John  tells  us  (ii,  17)  that  when  our 
Lord  cleansed  the  temple  his  disciples  drew  an  explana- 
tion of  the  fact  from  a  verse  in  one  of  the  strongest  of 
these  psalms  (Ixix),  for  they  "  remembered  that  it  was 
written,  The  zeal  of  thine  house  shall  eat  me  up."  The 
same  psalm  is  quoted  by  the  apostle  Paul  (Rom.  xi, 
9,  10)  to  set  forth  the  desert  and  the  doom  of  obstinate 
unbelievers  : 

"  Let  their  table  be  made  a  snare,  and  a  trap, 
And  a  stumbling-block,  and  a  recompense  unto  them  : 
Let  their  eyes  be  darkened,  that  they  may  not  see, 
And  bow  thou  down  their  back  alway." 

From  another  psalm  of  the  same  class  the  apostle  Peter 
quotes  passages  (Acts  i,  20)  designed  to  justify  the  choice 
of  a  successor  in  place  of  Judas:  "  For  it  is  written  in 
the  book  of  Psalms: 

Let  his  habitation  be  made  desolate, 
And  let  no  man  dwell  therein: 
His  office  let  another  take." 

Yet  in  no  one  of  these  cases  is  there  any  indication  that 
exception  is  taken  to  these  imprecatory  lyrics  as  in  any 


154  ANTI-TTIGHER   CRITICISM. 

way  inconsistent  with  New  Testament  ethics,  but  the  im- 
precations themselves,  in  two  of  the  cases,  are  cited  just 
as  any  portion  of  the  Psalter.  If  these  utterances  are  to 
be  condemned  as  wrong  the  way  is  open  to  impeach  the 
authority  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  other  directions. 
Beyond  a  doubt  the  Old  Testament  believers,  even  the 
best  of  them,  were  imperfect  men,  and  many  of  their 
doings  and  sayings  are  to  be  condemned  ;  but  the  case  is 
different  with  their  words  when  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit,  as  we  read  in  Heb.  iii,  8-11,  a  quotation  from 
the  Psalter,  preceded  by  the  authoritative  statement, 
"  even  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith."  For  our  part  we  prefer 
not  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  oracles  of  God,  but 
rather  to  seek  some  way  of  reconciling  their  utterances 
in  any  one  case  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  whole.  Is 
there  such  a  way }  We  honestly  think  that  there  is. 
The  imprecations  are  to  be  considered  not  as  ebullitions 
of  human  anger  excited  by  a  sense  of  personal  grievance, 
but  as  the  expressions  of  a  wholesome  abhorrence  of 
evil  and  a  deep  sense  of  its  ill  desert.  The  petitioner 
identifies  himself  with  the  holy  Being  whose  law  has 
been  grossly  violated,  and  speaks  as  in  his  name  and 
under  the  guidance  of  his  Spirit.  The  duty  of  the  for- 
giveness of  personal  injuries  was  not  unknown  under 
the  old  economy,  and  illustrations  of  the  fact  are  not 
wanting  in  the  Psalter.  For  example,  xxxv,  12,  13,  and 
xxxviii,  12,  13  : 

They  reward  me  evil  for  good, 

To  the  bei'eaving  of  my  soul. 

But  as  for  me,  when  they  were  sick,  my  clothing  was  sackcloth  : 

I  afflicted  my  soul  with  fasting. 

They  that  seek  my  hurt  speak  mischievous  things, 
And  imagine  deceits  all  the  day  long. 
But  I,  as  a  deaf  man,  hear  not ; 

And  I  am  as  a  dumli  man  tliat  openetli  not  liis  mouth. 


THE    BOOK    OF   PSALMS.  155 

It  seems  necessary  that  the  idea  of  retributive  justice 
should  be  set  forth  in  this  concrete  form,  and,  therefore, 
the  imprecations  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  blots  upon 
the  fair  face  of  the  Psalter,  infirmities  that  are  to  be  ex- 
plained and  apologized  for,  but  should  be  considered  a 
constituent  part  of  its  teaching,  designed  to  guard  us 
against  underrating  the  evil  of  sin  or  being  indifferent  to 
its  occurrence.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  when 
confronted  with  some  great  outbreak  of  wickedness  even 
eminent  Christians  have  found  that  the  imprecatory 
psalms  met  the  circumstances  and  formed  an  appropriate 
expression  of  the  feelings  they  felt  compelled  to  cher- 
ish. A  true  man,  an  intelligent  believer,  may  be  per- 
fectly ready  to  forgive  an  injury  so  far  as  his  own  inter- 
ests or  feelings  are  concerned,  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
may  long  for  the  vindication  of  outraged  justice.  An 
eminent  missionary  who  had  spent  a  long  life  in  Syria 
told  me  that  after  living  among  Mohammedans  so  many 
years  he  had  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  impre- 
catory psalms.  There  seemed  to  be  a  call  for  them,  and 
that  call  still  exists.  There  is  a  species  of  rose-water 
philanthropy  which  sadly  interferes  with  the  mainte- 
nance of  righteousness.  It  is  sufficient  for  a  man  to  be 
a  convicted  criminal  to  have  his  cell  deluged  with  flow- 
ers, and  the  more  aggravated  his  offense  the  greater  the 
manifestations  of  sympathy.  All  this  strikes  at  the  sta- 
bility of  law  and  the  foundations  of  society.  Hence  the 
need  of  a  strong  assertion  of  the  clainfs  of  eternal  justice. 
The  Psalter,  as  we  shall  see,  sets  forth  in  the  most  strik- 
ing way  the  riches  of  divine  grace  in  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  but,  lest  these  blessed  offers  and  promises  should  be 
misunderstood  and  perverted,  it  also  proclaims  in  thun- 
der tones  the  wages  of  sin  and  the  necessary  doom  of  the 
impenitent. 

There  is  a  ris^hteous  anc[er  which  a  risht-minded  man 


156  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ought  to  feel  toward  a  gross  transgressor,  and  which  if 
he  does  not  feel  there  is  reason  to  think  that  he  is  in- 
different to  the  claims  of  justice.  Who  can  witness 
deeds  of  atrocious  cruelty  upon  the  helpless  and  unof- 
fending without  having  his  blood  boil?  In  such  a  case 
there  is  no  room  for  supposing  personal  malevolence. 
No  injury  is  done  to  the  righteously  angry  man.  It  is 
the  outrage  upon  justice,  decency,  and  propriety  which 
he  feels,  and  which  the  moral  order  of  the  universe  re- 
quires to  be  fittingly  punished.  We  are  to  cherish  a 
sympathy  with  justice  and  right  as  well  as  with  our  fel- 
lowmen.  It  is  a  false  humanitarianism  that  glosses  over 
crime  and  apologizes  for  evildoers.  It  is  an  unsound 
civilization  that  tolerates  wrongdoing.  We  have  reason 
to  beware  of  a  philosophy  which  takes  away  the  back- 
bone of  our  moral  sense  and  wears  off  the  keen  edge  of 
that  detestation  of  evil  which  is  essential  to  righteous- 
ness. In  the  exquisite  delineation  of  the  Messiah  as 
King  (Psalm  xlv)  it  is  said: 

"  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated  wickedness: 
Therefore  God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee." 

The  hatred  of  iniquity  is  the  counterpart  of  the  love 
of  righteousness,  and  the  two  go  together.  The  love  of 
righteousness  includes  righteous  persons,  and  the  hatred 
of  wickedness  includes  wicked  persons.  It  is  one  thing 
to  smart  under  a  sense  of  personal  wrong  and  cherish 
a  vindictive  spirit,^and  quite  another  to  desire  retribu- 
tion upon  evildoers  as  a  satisfaction  of  justice  and  a 
vindication  of  the  rights  of  society.  The  psalmist  was 
like  the  Messiah  whom  he  praised  when  he  said  (Psalm 
cxxxix,  21,  22), 

"  Do  not  I  hate  them,  that  hate  thee,  Jehovah  ? 

And  am  not  I  grieved  witli  them  that  rise  up  against  thee? 

I  hate  them  with  a  perfect  hatred  ; 

I  count  them  my  enemies." 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  1 5/ 

He  had  no  personal  grudge  against  them,  but  because 
they  were  enemies  of  his  Lord  they  were  his  enemies. 

Besides,  there  will  occur  occasions  when  these  very 
psalms  will  appear  the  most  fitting  form  of  words  to  be 
used.  During  the  present  year  in  the  State  of  New 
Jersey  certain  legislation  was  proposed  which  to  all 
Christian  men  seemed  designed  to  "frame  mischief  by 
statute."  Ministers  and  churches  were  aroused,  and  a 
large  meeting  of  persons  from  different  parts  of  the  State 
was  held  at  the  capital  to  protest  against  the  consum- 
mation of  the  nefarious  purpose.  Professor  Duffield  was 
called  upon  to  open  the  exercises  with  prayer.  He  com- 
plied by  reading  with  emphatic  solemnity  the  Ninety- 
fourth  Psalm,  whose  opening  words  are  : 

"  O  Jehovah,  thou  God  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth, 
Thou  God  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth,  shine  forth. 
Lift  up  thyself,  thou  judge  of  the  earth  : 
Render  to  the  proud  their  desert." 

And  I  am  told  there  was  not  a  single  person  in  the 
vast  assemblage  that  did  not  think  that  this  was  the 
most  appropriate  prayer  that  could  have  been  offered* 
Yet  not  one  of  them  had  any  personal  wrong  which  he 
wished  to  avenge.  The  only  desire  was  to  avert  what  they 
considered  to  be  a  grievous  injury  to  societ}',  to  prevent 
legislation  that  would  open  the  door  to  every  kind  of 
vice  and  crime.  It  was  the  good  name  of  the  State, 
the  preservation  of  morality,  the  interests  of  individuals 
and  families,  that  moved  their  souls.  To  see  all  these 
struck  at,  and  that  simply  for  the  sordid  gains  of  a  few, 
made  them  feel  that  nothing  less  than  the  words  of  the 
indignant  psalmist  could  adequately  express  their  feel- 
ings; and  more  than  one  of  them  devoutly  thanked 
God  that  he  had  been  pleased  to  incorporate  in  the  service 
book  of  the  Elder  Economy  a  psalm  whose  fiery  energy 
seemed  expressly  made  for  tlie  occasion. 
11 


158  ANTI-IIIGIIKR    CRITICISM. 

It  remains  to  answer  the  questions,  Of  what  use  are 
these  imprecatory  psalms  to  the  ordinary  reader  of  the 
Bible  ?  Is  he  to  imitate  their  authors  and  invoke  anath- 
emas upon  the  heads  of  those  who  are  at  once  his 
enemies  and  the  enemies  of  God  ?  Surely  not.  The 
plain  directions  of  the  Saviour  forbid.  He  is  to  remem- 
ber that  these  men  were  under  the  direct  influence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  in  this  way  put  on  record 
their  entire  agreement  with  the  retributive  justice  of 
God,  shaping  their  utterances  in  accordance  with  the 
habits  of  their  time.  No  modern  believer  would  pray 
in  regard  to  any  enemy  of  God  that  his  wife  should  be  a 
widow  and  his  children  vagabonds,  or  pronounce  a  bless- 
ing upon  the  man  who  should  dash  his  little  ones  against 
the  rock.  In  this,  as  in  some  other  features,  the  Psalter 
does  not  furnish  a  pattern  for  literal  imitation.  But  the 
spirit  which  underlies  these  utterances,  the  sympathy 
with  God's  character  and  claims  which  they  exhibit,  is 
of  great  use  and  value.  It  strengthens  the  moral  fiber 
of  the  soul  and  draws  the  line  distinctly  between  for- 
bearance and  indifference. 

2.  Tlie  Uses  of  the  Psalter.  Here  we  enter  upon  a 
theme  as  to  which  there  is  little  difference  of  opinion 
among  real  believers.  However  men  diverge  in  their  views 
of  the  date,  authorship,  and  structure  of  the  Hebrew  lyr- 
ics, they  are  at  one  as  to  their  practical  use  and  applica- 
tion. In  every  age  the  Psalter  has  been  dear  to  the  Church 
as  a  vade  nieciim  of  daily  life,  and  justly,  since  its  treasures 
of  thought,  sentiment,  and  feeling  are  so  rich  and  varied. 
It  is 

(i.)  A  Manual  of  Praise.  Praise  is  both  comely  and 
becoming.  When  sincere  and  whole-hearted  it  is  per- 
haps the  most  acceptable  form  of  worship.  Cordially  to 
praise  what  is  praiseworthy  insensibly  brings  the  offerer 
nearer  to  the  subject  of  the  encomium.     Now  the  Psal- 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  1 59 

ter  is  a  constant  guide  and  stimulus  in  this  work.  It 
shows  us  by  precept  and  example  what  and  how  to 
praise.  The  name,  the  perfections,  the  works,  and  the 
ways  of  God  are  set  forth  in  a  very  distinct  and  attract- 
ive manner,  each  of  them  appeaUng  to  the  devout  soul 
and  rousing  its  deepest  interest.  The  diligent  and  care- 
ful reader  of  the  Psalter  can  never  go  astray  in  this  ele- 
ment of  devotion.  There  are  some  bodies  of  Christians 
who  confine  themselves  to  the  Psalms  in  public  worship. 
That  this  is  held  to  be  an  error  appears  very  clearly  from 
the  practice  of  the  great  majority  of  evangelical  Churches. 
Yet  it  may  be  said  with  the  late  Donald  Fraser  that  it 
is  a  greater  error  and  a  deeper  injury  to  supersede  the 
Psalter  entirely  by  hymn  books,  or  to  sing  it  only  in 
diluted  paraphrases.  One  thing  is  certain  :  This  book 
is  a  pattern  of  public  praise,  and  no  theory  on  the  sub- 
ject, however  ingenious  or  attractive,  can  stand  which  is 
opposed  to  the  specimens  given  us  in  the  Psalms.  Here 
we  find  subjective  as  well  as  objective  lyrics,  the  didactic 
as  well  as  the  emotional,  the  historical  and  descriptive 
as  well  as  the  imaginative.  Nor  is  it  a  strained  analogy 
to  say  that  what  was  good  for  the  ancient  believer  must 
equally  answer  the  needs  of  our  own  day. 

(2.)  A  Manual  of  Prayer.  On  this  point  the  instruction 
is  given  incidentally  yet  very  fully.  The  examples  show 
us  that  the  proper  object  of  prayer  is  neither  saints  nor 
angels,  but  God  alone  ;  for  him  alone  do  the  singers  ever 
address.  And  the  appeal  is  always  made  to  his  loving- 
kindness,  or  his  faithfulness  to  his  promise.  The  wide 
range  of  petitions  in  the  book  show  us  that  we  may 
come  to  God  for  every  human  interest,  and  that  we 
should  come  to  him  not  only  for  life  and  health,  for  food 
and  raiment,  for  home  and  friends,  but  for  pardon  and 
grace  to  do  what  is  right,  for  our  foes,  for  our  country 
and  its  rulers,  for  the  prosperity  of  Zion,  and  the  exten- 


l6o  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

sion  of  its  truth  and  privilege  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
Nor  are  the  graces  of  persistency  or  importunity  with- 
out exemplification  in  the  petitionary  psalms.  Our 
Lord,  we  are  told  (Luke  xviii,  i),  "spake  a  parable  unto 
his  disciples  to  the  end  that  they  ought  always  to  pray, 
and  not  to  faint ;"  but  they  should  not  have  required 
such  an  instruction,  seeing  that  they  had  so  many  illus- 
trious examples  of  importunity  given  in  the  Psalter  in  the 
case  of  persons  in  desperate  extremity  who  felt  that  they 
had  no  other  help  or  hope  than  in  God,  and  therefore 
called  on  him  day  and  night.  Usually  the  prayers  are 
answered.  And  there  are  many  psalms  which  begin 
with  sad  complaints  and  outcries  and  yet  end  with  notes 
of  thanksgiving  and  triumph.  There  is  only  one  excep- 
tion (the  eighty-eighth),  which  begins  and  ends  in  sorrow 
and  trouble,  and  in  this  respect  stands  alone  in  the  whole 
collection.  The  affecting  appeal  runs  through  the  entire 
eighteen  couplets,  and  perhaps  was  intended  to  show  the 
propriety  of  continuing  one's  entreaty  even  though  no 
sign  of  an  answer  was  received.  But  the  fact  that  this 
stands  alone  in  the  Psalter  in  its  unalleviated  gloom  is 
an  impressive  testimony  to  the  cheerful  and  buoyant 
character  of  the  praise  and  prayer  songs  of  Israel. 

(3.)  A7t  Exhibition  of  Experience.  The  lyrics  of  the 
Psalter  furnish  a  full  account  of  the  actual  workings  of 
the  truth  in  heart  and  life.  The  major  part  of  the 
book  is  a  recital  of  religious  experience.  It  sets  forth 
the  varied  manifestations  of  sin  in  word  and  deed,  the  ex- 
ercises of  the  soul  in  penitence  and  humiliation,  its  sub- 
mission under  trying  dispensations,  its  joy  in  God  when 
his  face  shines  upon  it.  In  short,  it  runs  through  the 
whole  gamut  of  pious  emotion,  so  that  notwithstanding 
the  book  belongs  to  an  early  and  imperfect  dispensation 
it  yet  fully  meets  the  wants  of  those  who  live  under  the 
full  blaze  of  gospel  light.     One  who  passed  through  the 


THE   BOOK   OF  PSALMS.  16.I 

sad  scenes  of  the  Indian  mutiny  said,  "  There  is  not  a  day 
in  which  we  do  not  find  something  in  the  Psalms  that 
appears  written  specially  for  our  unhappy  circumstances, 
to  meet  the  wants  and  feelings  of  the  day."  The  same 
testimony  has  been  borne  by  hundreds  and  thousands 
in  former  ages  as  well  as  in  our  own.  This  character- 
istic of  the  Psalter  is  greatly  weakened  by  the  tendency 
of  modern  critics  (and  particularly  Dr.  Cheyne)  to  deny 
the  personal  relation  of  many  of  the  psalms,  and  make 
them  utterances  of  the  nation  personified  as  an  individual. 
Even  the  exquisite  Twenty-third  Psalm  has  been  thus  ex- 
plained, to  the  great  loss  and  damage  of  the  reader.  But 
Dr.  McLaren  well  says :  "  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that 
the  voice  which  comes  so  straight  to  the  heart  did  not 
come  from  the  heart  of  a  brother  speaking  across  the 
centuries  his  own  personal  emotions,  which  are  universal 
just  because  they  are  individual  "  {Psalms,  i,  226).  The 
same  may  be  said  of  many  another  psalm.  There  are 
national  lyrics  in  which  the  whole  people  speak  as  one 
man,  and  there  is  no  need  of  adopting  this  chilling  refer- 
ence in  cases  where  the  entire  vitality  and  usefulness  of 
the  utterance  depends  upon  its  being  the  recital  of  an 
individual  experience. 

(4,)  It  Ilhanincs  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  not  uncom- 
mon for  even  good  people,  especially  the  young  among 
them,  to  undervalue  the  older  and  larger  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture. They  misconceive  its  place  and  value.  They 
think  only  of  its  cumbrous  ritual  system,  of  its  outward 
restrictions,  its  dim  intimations  of  the  life  to  come,  its 
close  alliance  of  the  Church  and  the  State  ;  and  they  won- 
der if  religion  could  maintain  its  vitality  under  such  an 
oppressive  burden  of  externalities.  One  glance  at  the 
Psalter  dispels  all  such  wonder.  Here  is  seen  the  beat- 
ing heart  of  a  true  believer ;  here  is  found  the  close 
•intercourse  of  the  soul  with  God ;  here  is  emancipation 


1 62  ANTI-HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

from  all  forms  and  ceremonies.  The  temple,  the  sacri- 
fice, the  offering  are  not  undervalued,  much  less  denied, 
but  it  is  clearly  seen  that  religion  is  more  than  form  and 
that  all  outward  services  apart  from  a  spiritual  mind  are 
of  no  account.  There  is  no  appearance  of  a  studied  effort 
in  this  direction,  but  the  result  of  even  a  superficial  read- 
ing of  the  Psalter  is  a  conviction  that  the  religion  of  the 
ancient  people  of  God  was  a  most  real  thing,  going  down 
to  the  depths  of  their  being  and  affecting  their  whole 
lives.  With  faint  reference  to  a  future  life  or  a  heavenly 
home  these  men  felt  that  friendship  with  God  and  trust 
in  his  favor  was  alike  their  present  duty  and  their  highest 
good.  When  one  singer  can  say,  "  I  have  no  good  be- 
yond thee,  O  Lord  "  (xvi,  2),  and  another  exclaims, 

"  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee? 

And  there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  beside  thee. 

My  flesh  and  my  heart  faileth  : 

But  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart  and  my  portion  forever," 

we  feel  that  here  is  a  vigor  of  faith  and  hope,  a  dead- 
ness  to  the  world  and  its  prizes,  which  the  most  advanced 
Christian  might  well  envy.  The  tree  is  known  by  its 
fruits,  and  if  the  Old  Testament  bore  such  blessed  results 
in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men  it  is  utterly  vain  to  de- 
nounce it  as  crude,  immature,  and  barbarous.  Prepara- 
tory as  it  was,  it  had  in  it  all  the  life-giving  elements  of 
a  genuine  spirituality,  and  nourished  saints  whose  soar- 
ing devotion  may  well  be  a  stimulus  and  a  pattern  to  us. 
(5.)  It  Maintains  a  High  Standard  of  Integrity.  Take, 
for  example,  the  Twenty-fourth  Psalm,  and  hear  the  ques- 
tion, 

"  Who  shall  arcend  into  the  hill  of  the  Lord  ? 
And  who  shall  stand  in  his  holy  place  ?  " 

What  is  the  answer?  Is  it,  "  The  Israelite,  the  circum- 
cised, the  man  who  has  paid  all  his  tithes  and  offerings  ?  " 
By  no  means.    Moral  and  spiritual  qualifications  are  alone 


THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS.  163 

insisted  upon.  The  writer  answers  his  own  question : 
"  He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart,"  and  mani- 
fests this  by  corresponding  speech  and  hfe,  as  the  singer 
proceeds  to  set  forth  ;  and  so  throughout  the  collection. 
The  emphasis  is  always  laid  upon  integrity  of  purpose 
and  uprightness  of  conduct,  for  which  nothing  else  can 
be  a  substitute.  Here  the  Psalter  stands  at  an  immeas- 
urable distance  above  all  other  sacred  books.  These 
latter  often  have  gleams  of  highness  and  of  purity,  and 
say  many  true  and  striking  things;  but  these  are  associ- 
ated with  others  of  a  very  different  character,  so  that  the 
result  is  a  piebald  mixture  of  truth  and  error,  destitute 
of  power  to  satisfy  the  reason  or  awaken  the  conscience. 
But  the  singers  of  Israel  have  but  one  standard,  and 
adhere  to  that  with  undeviating  fidelity.  As  David  said 
in  the  Fifty-first  Psalm, 

"  Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts: 

And  in  the  hidden  part  thou  shalt  make  me  to  know  wisdom." 

Sacrifice  and  offering  are  good  things,  but  the  best  of 
all  sacrifices  is  a  broken  and  a  contrite  spirit. 

There  was  a  constant  tendency  among  the  Hebrews  to 
make  the  observance  of  ritual  the  chief  thing.  But  they 
were  vigorously  warned  of  the  danger  of  such  a  course. 
Hence  we  find  in  the  Fiftieth  Psalm  the  indignant  remon- 
strance : 

"Will  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls, 

Or  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ? 

If  I  were  hungry.  I  would  not  tell  thee  ; 

For  the  world  is  mine,  and  the  fullness  thereof." 

Such  a  passage  is  not  a  repeal  of  the  Levitical  dispen- 
sation or  a  denial  of  its  authority  and  use,  but  an  earnest 
warning  against  the  insidious  temptation  to  make  sacri- 
fice and  offering  a  substitute  for  integrity  of  heart  and  life. 
(6.)  //  Teaches  the  Forgiveness  of  Sins.  How  fully  this 
is  done  appears  not   only  by  the  repeated   citations  of 


164  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

God's  revelation  of  himself  to  Moses  (Exod.  xxxiv,  6),  as 
"Jehovah,  Jehovah,  a  God  full  of  compassion  and  gra- 
cious," but  also  by  such  sweeping  statements  and  com- 
parisons as  occur  in  the  103d  Psalm : 

"  For  as  the  heaven  is  high  above  the  earth, 

So  great  is  his  mercy  toward  them  that  fear  him. 

As  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west, 

So  far  hath  he  removed  our  transgressions  from  us." 

This  forgiveness  was  granted  in  view  of  the  great  pro- 
pitiation on  the  cross,  not  then  made  known,  but  symbol- 
ized in  the  Mosaic  ritual.  Hence  David  said  in  the  great 
outpouring  of  his  heart  in  penitence,  "  Purge  me  with 
hyssop,"  in  allusion  to  the  bunch  of  hyssop  at  the  end 
of  the  rod  of  cedar  wood,  by  means  of  which  the  mingled 
blood  and  water  was  sprinkled  upon  the  defiled,  and  they 
became  ceremonially  clean.  The  humbled  king  desires 
to  have  applied  to  his  heart  and  conscience  that  which 
will  take  away  the  burden  of  guilt  and  the  stain  of  sin. 
The  true  effect  of  pardon  was  also  set  forth  in  the  Psalter, 
as  we  read  in  the  130th  Psalm  : 

"  But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee, 
That  thou  mayest  be  feared." 

The  issue  of  pardon  is  not  to  render  the  forgiven  indif- 
ferent and  careless,  but  just  the  other  way.  He  now  is 
free  to  go  on  in  a  new  course  rejoicing ;  the  intolerable 
burden  has  fallen  from  his  back,  and  the  restored  rela- 
tions of  friendliness  between  him  and  his  Maker  give  him 
a  new  and  abiding  impulse  in  the  practice  of  holy  living. 
Of  course  he  cannot  feel  the  tremendous  motive  that 
comes  from  the  cross  of  our  Lord,  but  he  does  feel  a 
motive  of  the  same  kind  when  the  sense  of  graciously 
pardoned  sin  binds  his  heart  like  a  fetter  to  the  spiritual 
service  of  his  Lord. 


ISAIAH.  165 


ISAIAH. 


BY  PASTOR  JAMES  H.  BROOKES,  D.D. 
Si.  Louis. 


He  who  reads  the  prophecy  with  care  must  perceive 
the  unity  of  design  that  pervades  the  entire  book.  The 
first  verse  of  the  first  chapter  gives  us  the  purpose  of  the 
revelation :  "  The  vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz, 
which  he  saw  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  the 
days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of 
Judah."  In  the  first  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  instead 
of  the  vision,  we  read,  "  The  word  that  Isaiah  the  son 
of  Amoz  saw  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem."  But 
whether  vision  or  word,  it  is  concerning  Judah  and  Jeru- 
salem. It  contains  much  important  truth  concerning 
ourselves  and  the  world.  It  announces  distinctly  the 
humiliation,  sufferings,  and  death,  exaltation  and  coming 
again  in  glory  and  majesty,  of  the  Messiah  ;  it  breathes 
the  sweet  invitations  of  the  Gospel ;  but  beyond  question 
its  leading  design  relates  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem  ;  and 
this  is  the  key  to  its  proper  exposition. 

The  first  chapter  is  the  preface  and  epitome  of  the 
book,  and  includes  the  whole  period  of  which  the  prophet 
treats.  It  sets  forth  the  persistent  rebellion,  the  more 
than  beastly  ingratitude,  and  the  utter  depravity  of  Is- 
rael ;  but  it  reaches  on  to  the  time  when  "  Zion  shall  be 
redeemed  with  judgment,"  a  form  of  expression  that 
could  not  be  applied  to  the  Christian  Church.  During 
the  long  interval  heartless  forms  of  worship  will  be 
maintained,  but  they  are  a  grief  and  trouble  and  weari- 


l66  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ness  to  Jehovah,  who  says,  "  Bring  no  more  vain  obla- 
tions ;  incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me ;  the  new 
moons  and  Sabbaths,  the  caUing  of  assemblies,  I  cannot 
away  with ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meeting." 
The  remainder  of  the  book  is  divided  into  seven  sec- 
tions. 

Section  I  shows  the  disobedience  and  punishment  of 
the  Jews,  but  their  restoration  at  the  second  advent  of 
Christ.  Here  mention  is  made  more  than  sixty  times 
of  Judah,  and  Jerusalem,  and  Israel,  and  Zion,  and  Jacob, 
and  David,  and  Ephraim,  and  Manasseh,  proving  how 
largely  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  occupied  about 
the  literal  seed  of  Abraham,  and  how  foolish  it  is  to 
spiritualize  these  names  into  something  they  were  never 
intended  to  represent. 

In  chapter  ii,  although  the  land  was  full  of  gold 
and  silver,  of  horses  and  chariots,  judgment  falls  upon 
its  natural  resources,  upon  the  branching  cedars  of 
Lebanon  and  the  proud  oaks  of  Bashan,  because  of  its 
idolatry. 

In  chapters  iii  and  iv  God  in  hot  indignation  with- 
draws the  blessing  of  government,  and  the  civil  and 
religious  heads  of  society,  the  warrior,  the  judge,  the 
prophet,  the  counselor,  the  scientific  man,  and  the 
eloquent  orator,  are  taken  away,  and  babes  rule  over 
them  ;  while  the  women  who  had  lived  to  display  their 
showy  apparel  have  their  finery  turned  into  mourning, 
and  seven  of  them  take  hold  upon  one  man,  so  great  has 
been  the  diminution  and  dearth  of  those  whose  admira- 
tion they  sought  to  win  by  costly  attire  and  showy  orna- 
ments. 

In  chapter  v,  under  the  emblem  of  a  vineyard,  is 
exhibited  the  unfaithfulness  and  unfruitfulness  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  men  of  Judah — indeed, 
of  the  whole  house  of  Israel ;  and  this  is  followed  by  six 


ISAIAH.  167 

woes,  caused  by  the  selfish  covetousness  of  the  people, 
their  ungodly  revelry,  their  shameful  servitude  to  iniq- 
uity, their  reversal  of  correct  views  of  good  and  evil, 
their  self-conceit,  and  their  drunkenness,  that  called  down 
upon  them  the  fierce  anger  of  the  Lord. 

In  chapter  vi  the  prophet  is  prepared,  by  a  marvel- 
ous manifestation  in  the  temple  of  the  glory  and  holiness 
of  Christ,  as  we  learn  from  John  xii,  37-41  >  and  by  a  won- 
drous revelation  of  divine  grace  in  providing  for  him  an 
atoning  sacrifice,  to  announce  to  his  countrymen  their 
rejection  and  banishment  from  the  land  of  their  fathers. 
But  the  withered  leaf  is  no  evidence  that  the  tree  is 
dead  ;  and  the  promise  is  given  in  a  passage  quoted 
again  and  again  in  the  New  Testament,  that,  although 
Israel  shall  be  scattered,  they  shall  not  be  consumed. 

Between  chapters  vi  and  vii  many  years  passed.  The 
last  of  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  the  whole  of  that  of  Jotham, 
and  part  of  that  of  Ahaz  intervened.  Syria  and  the 
ten  tribes  of  Israel  form  a  compact  to  destroy  Judah 
and  Jerusalem,  but  the  prophet  and  his  son,  Shear- 
jashub  (meaning  "the  remnant  shall  return),"  are  sent 
to  Ahaz  with  assurance  of  deliverance  from  the  enemy. 
The  Assyrian  would  soon  overrun  Israel,  leaving  utter 
desolation  behind  him;  and  Isaiah's  second  son,  Maher- 
shalal-hash-baz  (meaning  "hasten  prey — speed  spoil)," 
became  the  sign  of  coming  disaster  for  Judah  also,  be- 
cause they  sought  unto  familiar  spirits,  and  unto  wiz- 
ards that  peep  and  that  mutter,  and  not  unto  the  law 
and  testimony  of  God.  Hence  they  shall  be  hardly  be- 
stead, and  find  darkness  and  trouble. 

But  in  chapter  ix  the  gloom  is  relieved  by  a  shin- 
ing on  the  hills  of  Galilee,  the  bright  harbinger  of  a  day 
without  clouds.  It  ushers  in  the  beautiful  prediction  of 
a  coming  One  in  whom  the  human  race  is  interested, 
for  it  is  written,  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son 


l68  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

is  given:  and  tiie  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoul- 
der: and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counselor, 
The  mighty  God,  The  everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of 
Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace 
there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and 
upon  his  kingdom,  to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it 
with  judgment  and  with  justice  from  henceforth  even 
forever."  Then  the  prophet  immediately  resumes  the 
denunciation  of  God's  wrath  upon  the  guilty  nation,  be- 
gun in  the  fifth  chapter  and  interrupted  by  the  episode 
of  chapters  vi,  vii,  viii,  and  ix,  1-7. 

In  chapter  x  the  last  threat  of  punishment  in  this 
section  of  the  book  is  called  forth  by  the  daring  unright- 
eousness of  the  judges,  who  robbed  and  wronged  the 
people.  The  Assyrian,  therefore,  is  summoned,  as  the 
rod  of  Jehovah's  anger,  to  inflict  unsparing  blows  for  all 
the  iniquities  committed  in  the  land  ;  and  he  is  evidently 
a  type  and  forerunner  of  the  Antichrist  of  the  last  days, 
whose  rapid  march  upon  Jerusalem  is  most  graphically 
described  at  the  close  of  the  chapter. 

Hence  in  chapters  xi  and  xii,  immediately  follow- 
ing his  ravages,  the  true  Christ  is  introduced,  and  a 
lovely  picture  of  his  reign  is  seen,  when  the  ferocity  of 
the  wild  beasts  shall  be  touched  and  tamed  by  his  gentle 
scepter ;  and  the  earth  shall  be  flooded  with  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea;  and  his 
rest  shall  be  glorious;  and  the  outcasts  of  Israel  and  the 
dispersed  of  Judah  shall  be  gathered  a  second  time,  and 
from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth,  into  the  land  from 
which  they  have  been  exiled  so  many  dreary  centuries  ; 
and  their  song  of  praise  shall  ascend  to  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel. 

Thus  the  entire  cycle  of  Israel's  history  is  completed 
in  Section  I  as  in  chapter  i,  beginning  in  sin,  overhung 
with  storms,  and  ending  in   splendor.     All  through  the 


ISAIAH.  169 

tempestuous  voyage  of  this  strange  nation,  and  all 
through  the  prophet's  predictions  of  its  merited  doom, 
are  seen  promises  of  a  coming  and  divine  Deliverer,  like 
flashes  of  sunlight  bursting  through  the  dark  clouds.  It 
is  most  important  to  notice,  because  of  its  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  book,  that  the  section 
closes  with  the  prediction  of  complete  restoration  and 
triumph  at  the  second  advent  of  Christ  (chapters  i-xii). 

Section  II  is  laden  with  the  burden  of  seven  Gentile 
nations  that  stood  intimately  related  to  Israel  and  op- 
pressed her,  and  consequently  they  must  endure  the 
stroke  of  God's  hand,  for  he  will  not  permit  any  people, 
however  powerful,  to  persecute  the  Jew  with  impunity. 
Here  the  judgments  are  heavier  and  more  widely  spread, 
for  "  the  earth  mourneth  and  fadeth  away,  the  world 
languisheth  and  fadeth  away,  the  haughty  people  of  the 
earth  do  languish.  The  earth  also  is  defiled  under  the 
inhabitants  thereof.  .  .  .  Fear,  and  the  pit,  and  the  snare 
are  upon  thee,  O  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  The 
earth  shall  reel  to  and  fro  like  a  drunkard."  But  here, 
also,  the  close  of  the  cycle  of  fiery  indignation  is  radiant 
with  the  hope  of  Christ's  coming.  "Then  the  moon 
shall  be  confounded,  and  the  sun  ashamed,  when  the 
Lord  of  hosts  shall  reign  in  Mount  Zion  and  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  before  his  ancients  gloriously."  A  time  of 
feasting  in  the  mountain,  and  of  singing  in  the  land  of 
Judah,  succeeds;  and  "he  shall  cause  them  that  come 
of  Jacob  to  take  root:  Israel  shall  blossom  and  bud,  and 
fill  the  face  of  the  world  with  fruit."  Jehovah  appears 
for  the  deliverance  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  saying,  "  Ye 
shall  be  gathered  one  by  one,  O  ye  children  of  Israel." 
A  great  trumpet  is  blown,  "  and  they  shall  come  which 
were  ready  to  perish  in  the  land  of  Assyria,  and  the  out- 
casts in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  shall  worship  the  Lord 
in  the  holy  mount  at  Jerusalem  "  (chapters  xiii-xxvii). 


170  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Section  III  pronounces  woes,  first  upon  Ephraim,  or 
the  ten  tribes,  for  their  intemperance,  pride,  self-indul- 
gence, and  spiritual  stupidity,  and  then  upon  Jerusalem, 
called  Ariel,  or  '*  lion  of  God,"  that  shall  be  brought 
down,  and  speak  out  of  the  ground,  and  her  voice  shall 
be  low  out  of  the  dust,  and  she  shall  "  be  visited  of  the 
Lord  of  hosts  with  thunder,  and  with  earthquake,  and 
great  noise,  with  storm  and  tempest,  and  the  flame  of 
devouring  fire.  And  the  multitude  of  all  the  nations 
that  fight  against  Ariel,  even  all  that  fight  against  her  and 
her  munition,  and  that  distress  her,  shall  be  as  a  dream  of 
a  night  vision;"  a  prophecy  which  it  is  needless  to  say  has 
never  been  fulfilled,  and  therefore  remains  to  be  fulfilled, 
as  surely  as  God's  word  is  true.  Her  rebellious  children 
are  severely  censured  for  refusing  to  take  counsel  of 
God's  revealed  will,  and  for  seeking  help  of  Egypt;  but 
notwithstanding  their  ingratitude  and  unbelief,  "  as  birds 
flying,  so  will  the  Lord  of  hosts  defend  Jerusalem  ;  de- 
fending also  he  will  deliver  it ;  and  passing  over  he  will 
preserve  it."  Then,  "  a  King  shall  reign  in  righteous- 
ness," and  "  thine  eyes  shall  see  the  King  in  his  beauty: 
they  shall  behold  a  far  stretching  land;"  while  "the 
wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad  for  them  ; 
and  the  desert  shall  rejoice,  and  blossom  as  the  rose ; "  and 
"  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  return,  and  come  to 
Zion  with  songs  and  everlasting  joy  upon  their  heads: 
they  shall  obtain  joy  and  gladness,  and  sorrow  and  sigh- 
ing shall  flee  away  "  (chapters  xxviii  -xxxv). 

Section  IV  consists  of  four  historical  chapters,  quite 
different  in  diction  from  those  that  precede  them,  al- 
though their  Isaiah  authorship  has  never  been  ques- 
tioned. The  same  events  are  recorded  in  2  Kings  xviii- 
XX  and  2  Chron.  xxxii,  and  such  prominence  is  given  to 
them  by  the  Holy  Ghost  because  they  furnish  the  his- 
torical basis,  and  a   striking  type,   of  the   supernatural 


ISAIAH.  171 

deliverance  God's  ancient  and  future  people,  his  cove- 
nanted people,  shall  surely  experience  from  the  perils  of 
the  last  days.  In  chapters  xxxvi  and  xxxvii  we  have 
their  temporal  deliverance  set  forth  in  the  defeat  of  Sen- 
nacherib, king  of  Assyria,  and  in  the  destruction  of  his 
army ;  and  their  spiritual  restoration  is  depicted  in  the 
miraculous  recovery  of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  from  an 
apparently  fatal  illness,  followed  by  his  declared  pur- 
pose to  sing  songs  all  the  days  of  his  life  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord.  Then  comes  a  little  chapter  foretelling  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Babylon  ;  and  it  is  morally 
certain  that  Isaiah  did  not  end  his  prophecy  in  this  man- 
ner  (chapters  xxxvi-xxxix). 

But  just  at  this  point  higher  criticism  meets  us  with 
the  astounding  statement  that  the  prophet  abruptly  ter- 
minated his  message  with  the  proclamation  to  Hezekiah, 
"  Behold,  the  days  come,  that  all  that  is  in  thine  house, 
and  that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  until 
this  day,  shall  be  carried  to  Babylon :  nothing  shall 
be  left,  saith  the  Lord.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue 
from  thee,  which  thou  shalt  beget,  shall  they  take  away ; 
and  they  shall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  king 
of  Babylon."  In  the  light  of  all  that  precedes  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  Isaiah  did  not  conclude  his  ministry  with 
such  words.  If  those  who  insist  that  he  wrote  no  more 
had  permitted  him  to  close  with  chapter  xl,  "  Comfort  ye, 
comfort  ye,  my  people,"  it  might  not  have  been  so  bad  ; 
but  they  tell  us  that  the  prophecy,  from  the  beginning 
of  chapter  xl  to  the  end  of  chapter  Ixvi,  was  composed 
by  another  man,  who  lived  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
later,  called  the  Great  Unnamed  or  Deutero-Isaiah.  Let 
us  look  a  little  at  this  absurd  claim. 

I.  It  has  a  suspicious  origin.  The  higher  criticism, 
of  which  it  is  part,  had  its  beginning  with  one  Astruc,  a 
French  physician,  who  was  a  Jesuit  when  it  suited  his 


172  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

purpose,  a  contemporary  with  Voltaire  and  Bolingbroke, 
rivaling  them  both  in  profanity  and  obscenity,  an  ava- 
ricious and  licentious  scoundrel,  the  object  of  derision  by 
drunkards  on  the  streets,  who  published  a  deliberate  lie 
on  the  title-page  of  the  very  book  in  which  he  brought 
out  what  Professor  Briggs  calls  his  "  real  discovery," 
that  "  Genesis  consists  of  two  large  memoirs  and  nine 
lesser  ones."  Eichhorn,  whom  the  professor  calls  "the 
father  of  higher  criticism,"  was  an  avowed  infidel,  who 
had  no  more  faith  or  interest  in  the  Old  Testament  than 
in  Herodotus  ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  made  use  of  any  such  unworthy  instrumentalities 
to  shed  new  light  upon  his  word. 

2.  For  eighteen  hundred  years  previous  to  the  fanci- 
ful discovery  of  a  Deutero-Isaiah  scholars  as  able  and 
devout  as  any  found  among  the  higher  critics  of  to-day 
had  carefully  and  prayerfully  and  thoroughly  studied  the 
prophecy,  and  not  one  of  them  ever  discovered  the  least 
trace  of  the  existence  of  such  a  writer.  It  is  not  pre- 
tended that  any  versions  or  manuscripts  have  been  found 
to  aid  them  in  their  research,  or  that  any  historical  in- 
formation about  the  Great  Unknown  has  been  obtained  ; 
but  the  proof  that  he  lived  is  derived  wholly  from  certain 
internal  evidence  which  entirely  escaped  the  scrutiny 
of  competent  critics  for  many  centuries.  However  keen 
the  insight  of  those  who  hold  that  Isaiah  did  not  write 
his  prophecy,  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  they  surpass 
in  intellect  and  learning  all  who  preceded  them. 

3.  There  are  scholars  now  living  as  well  qualified  in  every 
respect  to  decide  such  a  question  as  the  noisy  and  preten- 
tious heralds  of  a  Deutero-Isaiah.  These  scholars,  who 
are  the  peers,  to  say  the  least,  of  the  others,  have  weighed 
the  arguments  and  examined  the  evidence  of  the  higher 
critics,  and  utterly  reject  and  repudiate  the  theory.  Men 
who  have  given  thirty,  forty,  and  some  of  them  sixty 


ISAIAH.  173 

years  to  the  study  of  the  book,  and  are  as  familiar  with 
the  Hebrew  as  they  are  with  the  English  alphabet,  fail 
to  find  the  slightest  reason  for  believing  that  any  other 
but  the  one  Isaiah  was  the  author  of  the  book  that  bears 
his  name.  Why  is  it  that  so  many  who  do  not  possess 
the  slightest  knowledge  of  the  subject  for  themselves 
eagerly  enlist  under  the  banner  of  higher  criticism,  unless 
they  are  anxious  to  be  assured  of  errors  and  mistakes  in 
the  Bible,  thus  illustrating  the  truth  of  its  testimony, 
"  The  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God  ?  " 

4.  The  first  advocates  of  the  Deutero-Isaiah  specula- 
tion were  the  rationalists,  or,  properly  speaking,  the 
infidels,  of  Germany,  and  from  that  country  it  passed 
over  to  England,  to  the  delight  of  a  few  professors,  who 
began  to  display  it  in  books  and  magazine  articles,  and 
then  it  crossed  the  sea,  to  be  adopted  by  certain  fussy 
professors  and  their  adherents  in  the  United  States.  But 
having  read  one  you  have  read  all.  The  English  and 
American  professors  tamely  follow  in  the  leading  strings 
of  their  German  masters,  so  that  in  reality  the  opinion 
of  two  or  three  "advanced  thinkers,"  as  they  are  pleased 
to  call  themselves,  is  set  up  against  the  best  scholarship 
and  the  cherished  conviction  of  the  Church  for  eighteen 
hundred  years.  The  two  or  three  start  into  a  trot  away 
from  the  Bible,  and  the  rest  trot  after  them.  Well  does 
the  word  of  God  describe  men  as  sheep,  not  merely 
because  of  their  helplessness  and  silliness,  but  because  of 
their  propensity  to  run  after  a  leader,  and  because  of 
their  inability  to  find  their  way  back  when  lost. 

5.  It  is  "  unthinkable,"  as  the  higher  critics  say,  that  a 
Deutero-Isaiah,  living  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
the  real  Isaiah,  was  so  wholly  unknown  to  the  men 
among  whom  he  walked,  was  so  entirely  unrecognized  by 
those  for  whom  he  wrote,  that  not  the  faintest  vestige  of 
him  remains,  and  that  it  required  about  two  thousand 

13 


174  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

four  hundred  years  even  to  conjecture  that  he  ever 
existed.  Neither  the  Jewish  writers  nor  the  Christian 
fathers  allude  to  any  such  person  ;  and  it  requires  a 
credulity  far  greater  than  that  which  is  necessary  to 
believe  that  the  true  Isaiah  mentioned  Cyrus  by  name 
long  before  his  birth,  if  men  can  be  persuaded  that  a 
pseudo-Isaiah  succeeded  in  palming  off  his  forgery  as  the 
genuine  production  of  the  true  prophet,  and,  having 
incorporated  it  with  the  sacred  Scriptures,  completely 
and  forever  passed  out  of  sight. 

6.  If  there  was  a  Deutero-Isaiah  he  was  totally  unlike 
the  other  prophets.  Isaiah  opens  his  prophecy  as  "  the 
vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  which  he  saw  concern- 
ing Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah"  (Isa.  i,  i).  Jere- 
miah says,  "The  words  of  Jeremiah  the  son  of  Hilkiah, 
of  the  priests  that  were  in  Anathoth  in  the  land  of 
Benjamin  :  to  whom  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  in  the 
days  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon  king  of  Judah,  in  the 
thirteenth  year  of  his  reign  "  (Jer.  i,  i,  2).  Ezekiel 
writes,  "  In  the  fifth  day  of  the  month,  which  was  the 
fifth  year  of  king  Jehoiachin's  captivity,  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  expressly  unto  Ezekiel  the  priest,  the  son  of 
Buzi,  in  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  by  the  river  Chebar  " 
(Ezek.  i,  2,  3).  Daniel  declares  that  he  prophesied  in 
Babylon  in  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  and  again,  "In 
the  first  year  of  Belshazzar  king  of  Babylon,  Daniel  had 
a  dream  and  visions  of  his  head  upon  his  bed  ;  "  and 
again,  "  In  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  son  of  Ahasuerus, 
of  the  seed  of  the  Medes,  which  was  made  king  over  the 
realm  of  the  Chaldeans  ;  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign, 
I  Daniel  understood  by  books  the  number  of  the  years, 
whereof  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah  the 
prophet,  that  he  would  accomplish  seventy  years  in  the 
desolations  of  Jerusalem  ;"  and  again,  "  In  the  third  year 


TSATAH.  175 

of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia  a  thing  was  revealed  unto 
Daniel  "  (Dan.  ii,  24;  vii,  i  ;  ix,  i,  2  ;  x,  i). 

Thus  it  is  with  the  other  prophets  without  exception. 
They  all  give  us  their  names,  and  often  the  names  of 
their  fathers,  or  the  time  and  place  of  their  ministry,  and 
every  one  of  them  asserts  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
to  him  (Hos.  i,  i;  Joel  i,  i;  Amos  i,  1,3;  Obad.  i;  Jonah 
i,  i;  Micah  i,  i ;  Nahum  i,  i,  12;  Hab.  i,  i;  ii,  2;  Zeph.  i,  i; 
Hag.  i,  i;  Zech.  i,  i;  Mai.  i,  i).  But  it  is  altogether  dif- 
ferent with  the  Deutero-Isaiah.  He  pounces  upon  us 
unannounced  and  unintroduced,  withholds  his  name  and 
the  name  of  his  father,  refrains  from  any  mention  of  the 
date  of  his  prophecy,  does  not  assert  that  the  word  of 
the  Lord  came  to  him,  bears  none  of  the  credentials  of  a 
prophet,  and  conceals  his  personality  so  completely  that 
when  he  vanishes  from  human  sight  even  his  existence  was 
not  suspected  for  more  than  two  thousand  years.  Yet  he 
wrote  so  wonderfully,  he  gave  utterance  to  prophecies  so 
sublime  and  far-reaching  in  their  bearing  upon  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  and  the  world  at  large,  he  poured  forth  in 
strains  so  enchanting  the  entreaties  of  the  Gospel,  one 
would  suppose  that  he  must  have  received  at  least  a 
passing  notice  from  Daniel  or  Ezekiel  or  some  of  his  con- 
temporaries ;  and  the  fact  that  he  received  no  such  notice, 
and  that  he  is  nowhere  mentioned,  is  strong  presumptive 
evidence  that  there  was  no  such  man. 

7.  The  decree  of  Cyrus  is  conclusive  proof  that  he 
never  existed.  "  Thus  saith  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  the 
Lord  God  of  heaven  hath  given  me  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  earth;  and  he  hath  charged  me  to  build  him  a 
house  at  Jerusalem,  which  is  in  Judah  "  (Ezra  i,  2).  The 
work  of  building  was  interrupted  for  a  long  time  under 
his  successors,  until  in  the  reign  of  Darius  search  into  the 
public  records  was  made,  and  "  there  was  found  at  Ach- 
metha,  in  the  palace  that  is  in  the  province  of  the  Medes 


1/6  AXTI-IIIGHER    CRITICISM. 

a  roll,  and  therein  was  a  record  thus  written  :  In  the  first 
year  of  Cyrus  the  king,  the  same  Cyrus  the  king  made 
a  decree  concerning  the  house  of  God  at  Jerusalem,  Let 
the  house  of  God  be  builded,  the  place  where  they 
offered  sacrifices  "  (Ezra  vi,  2,  3).  The  only  source  of 
information  from  which  Cyrus  could  have  learned  the 
will  of  God  with  regard  to  the  building  of  the  temple  is 
found  in  what  is  called  Deutero-Isaiah :  "  That  saith  of 
Cyrus,  He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  perform  all  my 
pleasure:  even  saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shalt  be  built ; 
and  to  the  temple,  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid.  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  to  his  anointed,  to  Cyrus,  whose  right 
hand  I  have  holden,  to  subdue  nations  before  him  ;  and 
I  will  loose  the  loins  of  kings,  to  open  before  him  the 
two-leaved  gates  [of  Babylon].  .  .  .  For  Jacob  my  serv- 
ant's sake,  and  Israel  mine  elect,  I  have  even  called  thee 
by  thy  name  :  I  have  surnamed  thee,  though  thou  hast 
not  known  me  (Isa.  xliv,  28;  xlv,  I,  4). 

The  only  way  to  break  the  force  of  this  testimony  is 
to  assert  that  the  Book  of  Ezra  is  also  a  forgery.  But 
higher  criticism  is  unwilling  to  do  this,  for  the  book  is  its 
mainstay  to  disprove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch ;  and  much  of  the  Old  Testament  literature  is 
referred  to  him  or  to  his  contemporaries.  Even  higher 
criticism  reluctantly  confesses  that  there  must  be  historic 
credibility  somewhere,  and  so  far  it  has  not  laid  its 
destructive  hand  upon  Ezra.  But  if  Ezra  tells  the  truth 
Cyrus  knew  that  God  had  commanded  him  to  build  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  he  knew  that  the  command 
was  contained  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  written  long 
before  his  birth,  and  not  by  some  Great  Unnamed  living 
during  his  own  reign. 

8.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters 
of  Isaiah  were  composed  in  the  period  of  the  Babylo- 
nian captivity  and  at  the  time  of  the  ascension  of  Cyrus 


ISAIAH.  177 

to  the  throne.  If  the  writer,  or  any  person  or  persons 
representhig  the  writer,  had  gone  to  the  monarch  with 
the  announcement  that  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews 
contained  a  prediction  of  his  building  the  temple,  is  it 
not  certain  that  he  would  have  instantly  discovered  the 
fraud  ?  Would  he  not  have  sent  for  the  priests  or  scribes, 
and  required  them  to  point  out  in  their  prophecies  the 
place  where  he  is  predicted  by  name }  If  he  ascertained 
that  his  name  was  not  written  in  a  book  composed  a 
hundred  years  before  his  birth,  but  in  a  book  composed 
after  he  had  taken  the  scepter  of  empire,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  he  would  have  properly  ordered  the  head 
of  the  forger  to  be  shaved  or  cut  off.  The  assertion  that 
the  last  half  of  Isaiah  was  not  written  until  the  days  of 
Cyrus  makes  that  astute  politician  and  brilliant  soldier 
nothing  less  than  a  fool,  the  credulous  dupe  of  an 
unscrupulous  sharper ;  and  it  is  amazing  that  higher 
criticism  can  venture  upon  such  a  supposition. 

9.  Josephus  declares  in  an  undisputed  passage  that  the 
purpose  of  Jehovah  to  rebuild  the  temple  "  was  known  to 
Cyrus  by  his  reading  of  the  book  which  Isaiah  left  behind 
him  of  his  prophecies.  Accordingly,  when  Cyrus  read 
this  (the  charge  given  to  him  by  Jehovah),  an  earnest 
desire  and  ambition  seized  upon  him  to  fulfill  what  was 
so  written  "  {Antiquities,  book  xi,  chap.  i).  It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  Josephus  knew  of  only  one  Isaiah, 
and  that  he  never  heard  of  a  Deutero-Isaiah,  and  it  is 
equally  evident  that  this  learned  Jew,  so  versed  in  the 
history  and  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament,  must  have 
caught  a  glimpse  of  the  man  if  he  had  really  appeared. 
Not  only  so,  but  if  the  differences  in  the  diction  and  in 
the  structure  of  the  two  parts  of  the  prophecy  are  so 
marked,  as  higher  criticism  alleges,  it  is  certain  that  they 
could  not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  an  observer  so  acute 
and   a  Hebrew  scholar  so  accurate  as  the  distinguished 


178  AN  ri-IllCllER   CRITICISM. 

author  of  the  book  that  assigns  the  entire  prophecy  to 
the  true  Isaiah. 

10.  The  mention  of  Cyrus  by  name  a  century  before  his 
birth  accounts  for  the  imaginary  discovery  of  the  Great 
Unnamed.  Of  course  higher  criticism  cannot  admit  that 
such  a  thing  is  possible,  for  it  would  cease  to  live  if  it 
could  cease  to  eliminate  the  supernatural  from  the  Bible. 
It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  this  school  of  baptized 
infidelity  that  "  the  prophets  were  bounded  like  other 
men,  by  the  horizon  of  their  own  views,  and  occupied 
themselves  only  with  that  future  whose  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments were  likely  to  reach  their  contemporaries." 
Or,  as  Professor  Bruce  expresses  it,  "  Isaiah  prophesied 
and  predicted  all  he  did  from  loyalty  to  two  simple 
truths,  which  he  tells  us  he  received  from  God  himself — 
that  sin  must  be  punished,  and  that  the  people  of  God 
must  be  saved.  This  simple  faith,  acting  with  a  wonder- 
ful knowledge  of  human  nature  and  ceaseless  vigilance  of 
affairs,  constituted  inspiration  for  Isaiah.  For  the  exact 
conditions  and  forms,  both  of  the  punishment  and  its  relief, 
the  prophets  depended  upon  their  own  knowledge  of  the 
world."  Or,  as  Professor  Briggs  repeatedly  asserts,  "  A 
minute  fulfillment  of  predictive  prophecy  is  impossible." 

So  far  is  this  from  the  truth  it  is  directly  contrary  to 
the  truth,  and  yet  multitudes  of  unthinking  mortals  will 
swallow  any  statement,  however  absurd,  if  it  comes  to 
them  with  a  show  of  learning. 

The  Bible  is  full  of  examples  of  predictive  prophec}' 
that  has  met  a  literal  and  minute  and  precise  fulfillment, 
and  every  well-taught  child  knows  that  such  is  the  fact. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  allude,  by  way  of  illustration,  to 
the  seed  of  the  woman  bruising  the  serpent's  head  (Gen. 
iii,  15);  the  prophecy  to  Noah  that  there  shall  not  be  a 
flood  any  more  to  destroy  the  earth  (Gen.  ix,  ii);  the 
prophecy  to  Abraham  that  in  him  all  the  families  of  the 


ISAIAH.  179 

earth  arc  to  be  blessed,  and  that  he  should  have  a  son  in 
his  old  age,  whose  name  is  mentioned  before  his  birth 
(Gen.  xii,  3  ;  xvii,  9)  ;  the  prophecy  to  Moses  concerning 
the  calling  of  them  that  were  no  people  (Deut.  xxxii,  21; 
Rom.  X,  9) ;  the  prophecy  cursing  the  man  who  should 
rise  up  to  build  Jericho  (Josh,  vi,  26;  i  Kings  xvi,  34)  ; 
the  prophecy  to  David  relating  to  his  illustrious  son,  of 
whom  he  was  seen  as  the  type  (i  Chron.  xvii,  17;  Rom. 
i,  3);  the  prophecy  that  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear  a 
son(Isa.  vii,  14  ;  Matt,  i,  23)  ;  the  prophecies  that  pointed 
out  tlie  place  of  his  birth,  the  date  of  his  appearing,  the 
character  of  his  ministry,  his  sufferings  and  death,  his 
resurrection  and  ascension  (Micah  v,  2  ;  Dan.  ix,  24-26; 
Isa.  Ixi,  1-3  ;  Psa.  xxii,  1-18;  Ixix,  1-21  ;  Isa.  liii,  4-6; 
Psa.  xvi,  10;  Ixviii,  18);  the  prophecies  concerning  Baby- 
lon, Egypt,  Edom,  T)'rc,  Nineveh,  Jerusalem,  and  other 
countries  and  cities,  that  stretched  far  beyond  the  hori- 
zon of  the  prophet's  view  and  that  have  been  minutely 
fulfilled  in  the  e)'esof  all  the  world.  There  are  hundreds 
of  such  prophecies  in  detail,  and  it  is  too  late  a  day  to 
claim  that  they  cannot  be  true. 

But  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  cherished  Deutero- 
Isaiah  of  the  higher  critics  is  the  very  one  who  makes  use 
of  the  argument  from  prophecy  to  prove  the  infinite  su- 
periority of  Jehovah  above  all  gods,  and  to  establish  his 
claim  upon  human  faith.  He  summons  the  nations  to  trial, 
that  the  relative  merits  of  the  God  of  Israel  and  the  sense- 
less objects  of  idolatrous  worship  may  be  tested:  "  Pro- 
duce your  cause,  saith  the  Lord  ;  bring  forth  your  strong 
reasons,  saith  the  king  of  Jacob.  Let  them  bring  them 
forth,  and  show  us  what  shall  happen  :  let  them  show  the 
former  things,  what  they  be,  that  we  may  consider  them, 
and  know  the  latter  end  of  them  ;  or  declare  us  things  for  to 
come.  Show  the  things  that  are  to  come  hereafter,  that 
we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods  "  (xli,  21-23).     Then  he 


l80  ANTI-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

adds,  "  I  have  raised  up  one  from  the  north,  and  he  shall 
come  :  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  shall  he  call  upon  my 
name  :  and  he  shall  come  upon  princes  as  upon  mortar, 
and  as  the  potter  treadeth  clay  "  (xli,  25).  Here  the  asser- 
tion is  distinctly  made  that  Cyrus  would  be  raised  up  as 
the  deliverer  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  confirm  the  confidence 
of  the  people  appeal  is  taken  to  prophecies  already  ful- 
filled. But  if  the  prophecy  was  delivered  at  the  close  of 
the  captivity  all  the  force  of  the  argument  is  destroyed, 
and  it  becomes  ridiculous.  It  was  a  venture  no  man 
would  dare  to  take  to  write  history  and  to  claim  that  it 
was  prophecy. 

II.  The  second  division  of  Isaiah  deals  largely  with  the 
idolatry  of  the  Israelites,  and  it  is  evidently  an  idolatry 
of  which  the  people  were  guilty  at  the  time  the  prophecy 
was  written.  For  proof  of  this  see  xl,  xli,  xlii,  xliv,  xlv, 
xlvi.  Still  later  it  is  said  to  these  idolaters,  ''  Inflaming 
yourselves  with  idols  under  every  green  tree,  slaying  the 
children  in  the  valleys  under  the  clefts  of  the  rocks  ;  .  .  . 
even  to  them  hast  thou  poured  a  drink  offering,  thou  hast 
offered  a  meat  offering"  (Ivii,  5,  6);  "a.  people  that  pro- 
voketh  me  to  anger  continually  to  my  face  ;  that  sacrific- 
eth  in  gardens,  and  burnetii  incense  upon  altars  of  brick  " 
(ixv,  3) ;  "  they  that  sanctify  themselves,  and  purify  them- 
selves in  the  gardens  behind  one  tree  in  the  midst,  eating 
swine's  flesh,  and  the  abomination,  and  the  mouse,  shall 
be  consumed  together,  saith  the  Lord  "  (Ixvi,  17).  Thus 
from  chapter  xl  to  Ixvi,  including  the  whole  of  the  sup- 
posed Deutero-Isaiah  portion  of  the  book,  the  folly  and 
wickedness  of  idolatry  are  denounced  as  an  actual  and  pres- 
ent evil,  and  not  merely  as  a  putrid  reminiscence.  But 
there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  saying  that  idolatry 
continued  during  the  Babylonian  captivity.  There  is 
every  reason  for  saying,  both  from  sacred  and  from  profane 
history,  from   internal  evidence  and  from  the  testimony 


ISAIAH.  iBl 

of  the  Jews,  that  it  ceased  ;  and  hence  the  latter  part  of 
Isaiah  was  not  written  by  a  Great  Unnamed  toward  the 
close  of  the  captivity,  for  there  would  have  been  no  ap- 
propriateness in  his  teaching. 

12.  This  latter  part  was  not  written  from  the  stand- 
point of  an  exile,  as  the  higher  critics  affirm,  but  from  the 
standpoint  of  one  in  the  land  of  his  fathers.  Jerusalem 
and  the  cities  of  Judah  and  Zion  and  Lebanon  are  often 
named,  as  if  the  prophet  stood  in  their  midst  ;  and  if  he 
was  in  Babylon  surely  he  could  not  have  spoken  of  Ur  ot 
the  Chaldees  as  "  the  ends  of  the  earth"  (xli,  9).  It  is 
true  that  he  says,  "Thy  holy  cities  are  a  wilderness,  Zion 
is  a  wilderness,  Jerusalem  a  desolation.  Our  holy  and 
our  beautiful  house,  where  our  fathers  praised  thee,  is 
burned  up  with  fire:  and  all  our  pleasant  things  arc  laid 
waste  ;"  but  they  have  read  the  Bible  with  a  very  unob- 
serving  eye  who  have  not  seen  how  frequently  the  future 
is  put  in  the  past,  and  how  it  is  said  of  that  which  is  }-et 
to  come,  "  It  is  done."  For  example,  the  Lord  said  to 
Gideon,  as  Dr.  Young  correctly  translates  it,  "  Because  I 
am  with  thee,  thou  hast  smitten  the  Midianites  as  one 
man  "  (Judg.  vi,  16),  although  the  Midianites  were  not 
then  smitten.  So  the  supposed  Deutero-Isaiah  says  of 
our  Lord,  "He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he 
was  bruised  for  our  iniquities  :  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him  "  (Isa.  liii,  5) ;  but  it  will  not  be 
claimed  that  he  was  already  crucified.  Nothing  is  more 
common  in  the  Bible  than  such  forms  of  expression,  show- 
ing how  certain  of  fulfillment  are  the  prophecies,  how 
trustworthy  is  the  word  of  God  ;  and  the  higher  critics 
must  be  hard  pushed  for  argument  when  they  make  the 
prophet's  confidence  in  the  prediction  of  Jehovah  a  rea- 
son for  believing  that  Jerusalem  was  already  destroyed. 

13.  There  are  verbal  evidences  of  one  authorship  which 
are  worthy  of  notice.     Thus  it  is  remarkable  how  fre- 


1 82  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

quently  in  both  divisions  of  the  prophecy  the  root  mean- 
ing of  Hezekiah,  "strength  or  help  of  the  Lord,"  is 
brought  out.  We  find  it  in  chapters  iv,  i  ;  xxii,  21  ; 
xxvii,  5;  xxviii,  22;  xxxiii,  23;  xxxix,  i,  of  the  first 
thirty-nine  chapters,  and  also  in  chapters  xH,  6,  7,  9,  10, 
13;  xlv,  I  ;  h',  18;  liv,  2;  Ivi,  2,  4,  6;  Ixiv,  7,  although 
translated  in  a  variety  of  ways.  The  writer  of  both 
parts  delights,  as  it  were,  to  play  upon  the  word  that  sug- 
gests, amid  the  gathering  tempest,  the  strength  of  Jeho- 
vah. So  the  peculiar  use  oi  yak-mar  for  a/i-mar,  "saith 
the  Lord,"  occurring  three  times  in  the  earlier  prophe- 
cies and  five  times  in  the  later,  and  nowhere  else,  shows 
one  authorship  of  the  two  parts.  The  same  evidence  is 
found  in  the  title  applied  to  Jehovah,  and  never  applied 
before  Isaiah's  ministry  by  the  prophets,  "  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel,"  which  occurs  fourteen  times  in  the  first  thirty- 
nine  chapters  and  fourteen  times  in  the  last  twent}'- 
seven.  Again,  we  read,  "Thou  shalt  be  called  Hephzi- 
bah  "  (Ixii,  4),  the  name  of  Hezekiah's  wife,  as  we  learn 
in  2  Kings  xxi,  i  ;  and  all  these  things,  taken  together, 
make  the  probability  amount  to  a  demonstration  that 
the  latter  part  of  the  prophecy  was  written  by  the  same 
pen  the  Holy  Ghost  employed  to  write  the  first  part, 
and  during  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 

14.  The  two  parts  are  linked  together  by  the  four  his- 
torical chapters,  and  each  would  be  incomplete  without 
the  other.  The  first  deals  largely  with  that  which  is  out- 
ward, local,  and  temporary  in  Israel's  history,  and  thus 
lays  the  sure  foundation  for  the  broader  revelations  that 
follow  in  the  second  part,  where  God  is  revealed  as 
mighty,  xl ;  ever  present,  xli ;  sending  his  elect  servant, 
xlii ;  faithful,  xliii ;  bestowing  his  Spirit,  xliv;  charging 
Cyrus  to  deliver  his  people,  xlv ;  showing  the  helpless- 
ness of  the  gods  of  Babylon,  xlvi ;  degrading  Babylon, 
xlvii ;  determined   not  to  cast  off  his  people,  xlviii ;  de- 


isaiah.  183 

daring  that  Christ  shall  come,  xlix;  describing  the  depth 
of  his  humiliation,  1 ;  uttering  tender  appeals,  li ;  assur- 
ing liis  chosen  of  future  deliverance,  Hi ;  telling  of  Christ's 
substitutionary  death,  liii  ;  causing  Jerusalem  to  sing,  liv  ; 
sending  forth  urgent  invitations  to  come,  Iv  ;  blessing  all 
who  join  themselves  to  him,  Ivi ;  removing  his  faithful 
ones  from  approaching  evils,  Ivii ;  exposing  the  source  of 
Israel's  ruin,  Iviii ;  showing  that  judgments  must  pursue 
iniquity,  lix  ;  exhibiting  Israel's  glory,  Ix ;  setting  forth 
Messiah's  mission,  Ixi ;  leading  to  earnest  intercessory 
prayer,  Ixii ;  portraying  his  return  from  executing  venge- 
ance, Ixiii ;  exciting  fervent  supplications,  Ixiv ;  giving 
a  picture  of  millennial  blessedness,  Ixv ;  and  the  promise 
of  the  Lord's  coming,  Ixvi. 

If  the  first  Isaiah  ended  his  prophecy  with  chapter 
xxxix  his  work  is  like  an  unfinished  or  shattered  col- 
umn ;  and  as  we  lay  it  down  there  comes  to  us  a  pain- 
ful sense  of  inappropriateness  in  the  termination  and  of 
incompleteness  in  the  whole  structure.  If  the  second 
Isaiah  began  his  work  with  chapter  xl  the  column  which 
he  reared,  even  into  eternity  and  heaven,  has  no  base 
whatever  for  its  support.  It  is  an  abrupt  and  fragment- 
ary proclamation  of  Jehovah's  creative  power,  constant 
providence,  redeeming  mercy,  and  unchangeable  purpose, 
connected  with  nothing  that  goes  before  and  containing 
nothing  that  explains  its  origin.  Section  V  reveals  God 
moving  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people,  and  closing 
with  the  coming  of  the  Lord  (xl-xlix).  Section  VI  shows 
God's  interposition  in  their  behalf,  and  closing  with  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  (1-lxi),  Section  VII  is  full  of  inter- 
cessory prayer,  and  closing  with  the  coming  of  the  Lord 
(Ixii-lxvi).  But  these  sections  are  the  manifest  outgrowth 
of  the  four  preceding  sections,  and  sustain  to  them  a 
logical  and  indissoluble  relation. 

15.  A  careful  examination  of  the  four  historical  chap- 


184  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ters  shows  that  there  is  a  designed  reversal  of  the  chrono- 
logical events  there  recorded.  The  invasion  of  the  land 
of  Judah  occurred  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  King  Heze- 
kiah  (Isa.  xxxvi,  i;  2  Kings  xviii,  13):  "In  those  days 
was  Hezekiah  sick  unto  death  "  (Isa.  xxxviii,  i).  We 
know  that  it  was  the  year  of  the  Assyrian  invasion,  ior 
fifteen  years  were  miraculously  added  to  his  life,  and  he 
died  after  a  reign  of  twenty-nine  years  (2  Kings  xviii,  2). 
But  the  sickness  preceded  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian 
army,  for  God  said  to  him  while  he  was  drawing  nigh  to 
the  grave,  "  I  will  add  unto  thy  days  fifteen  years.  And 
I  will  deliver  thee  and  this  city  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
king  of  Assyria :  and  I  will  defend  this  city  "  (Isa.  xxxviii, 
5,  6).  Then  immediately  ensued  the  sign  on  the  sundial 
of  Ahaz.  Hence,  according  to  chronological  order,  chap- 
ters xxxviii  and  xxxix  ought  to  have  preceded  xxxvi 
and  xxxvii ;  and  why  was  the  historical  order  reversed  ? 
Because  the  Spirit  of  God  knew  that  Assyria  would  soon 
be  retired  from  the  field  of  vision,  that  Babylon  was  the 
great  foe  of  Israel  in  the  future,  continuing  to  be  the 
head  of  all  that  opposes  him  and  his  people  until  its 
final  overthrow  in  Rev.  xvii,  xviii ;  and  he  wishes  his 
servant  to  face  Babylon,  as  leading  on  to  the  prophecies 
contained  in  the  latter  part  of  the  book.  The  very  posi- 
tion of  these  historical  chapters,  therefore,  forbids  the 
thought  of  a  Deutero-Isaiah. 

16.  If  there  was  such  a  person,  and  he  succeeded  in 
passing  off  his  own  writings  for  those  of  the  true  Isaiah, 
he  was  a  forger,  and  a  forger  of  the  meanest  kind,  be- 
cause he  counterfeited  the  things  of  God  and  pretended 
to  be  a  prophet  divinely  commissioned.  Hence  the 
work  of  his  pen  is  utterly  worthless  ;  and  when  the  higher 
critics  inform  us  that  it  is  of  no  importance  whether  the 
Scriptures  were  written  by  the  men  whose  names  they 
bear,  or  by  others  who  assumed  these  names,  they  dis- 


ISAIAH.  185 

play  a  mental  or  moral  obliquity  of  perception  which  it 
is  difficult  to  understand.  For  example,  they  insist  that 
Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  illuminated  with  the  name 
of  Moses,  were  composed  hundreds  of  years  after  the 
death  of  Moses,  whose  name  was  forged  by  the  authors  to 
secure  the  sanction  and  strength  of  his  influence,  and  yet 
that  they  form  parts  of  Holy  Scripture.  An  authentic 
anecdote  is  told  of  Wellhausen,  to  whom  an  American 
spoke  of  the  extensive  following  he  has  in  this  country, 
and  added  that  his  admirers  here  still  maintain  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  discredited  documents.  The  German  in- 
fidel was  silent  for  a  moment,  and  then  exclaimed:  "I 
have  undoubtedly  proved  the  books  to  be  forgeries,  but 
it  never  occurred  to  me  to  make  God  Almighty  a  party 
to  the  fraud."  This  is  precisely  what  the  theory  of  a 
Deutero  or  pseudo  Isaiah  does  for  the  prophecy  ;  it  makes 
God  a  party  to  the  fraud  by  claim.ing  that  a  base  imposi- 
tion is  to  be  accepted  as  no  less  worthy  of  our  reverence 
than  the  testimony  of  the  true  Isaiah. 

17.  The  supposition  that  the  writings  of  the  Great  Un- 
named found  their  way  without  fraud  into  the  canon  of 
Scripture  is  equally  inadmissible ;  for,  apart  from  the 
watchful  providence  of  God  that  guides  the  flight  of  a 
sparrow  and  counts  the  hairs  of  our  heads,  and  that  is 
pledged  to  guard  his  living  word  against  such  intrusion, 
that  would  prove  fatal  to  his  revealed  will,  it  is  certain 
that  the  jealous  care  of  the  scribes  for  every  syllable  and 
letter  of  their  sacred  Scriptures  would  have  rendered  the 
inadvertence  impossible.  Besides  this  it  is  inconceivable 
that  in  the  exercise  of  their  incessant,  and,  as  some  would 
call  it,  superstitious  watchfulness,  and  with  multiplied 
copies  of  Isaiah's  prophecy — which  there  is  every  reason 
to  believe  were  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  hands  of 
the  devout — the  supposed  addition  could  have  escaped 
their  observation.     In  any  view,  therefore,  whether  the 


1 86  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

higher  critics  believe  that  the  imaginary  writings  were  in- 
corporated with  the  Bible  fraudulently,  or  ignorantly  and 
innocently,  it  is  necessary  to  exclude  the  idea  of  a  Deu- 
tero-Isaiah. 

1 8.  In  another  inspired  book  there  is  distinct  reference 
made  to  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  as  written  in  the  days  of 
Hezekiah,  and  therefore  before  the  captivity  :  "  Now  the 
rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah,  and  his  goodness,  behold, 
they  are  written  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah  the  prophet  the 
son  of  Amoz  "  (2  Chron.  xxxii,  32).  The  prophecy,  as 
such,  and  as  a  whole,  is  attributed  to  one  Isaiah,  and  by 
a  writer  who  lived  about  the  period  assigned  to  the  Deu- 
tero-Isaiah.  In  another  book,  not  inspired,  but  valuable 
as  historical  evidence  because  it  sets  forth  the  belief  of 
those  who  lived  a  little  later  than  the  time  of  the  sup- 
posed Great  Unknown,  clear  testimony  is  given  to  the 
Isaiah  authorship  of  the  whole  book.  "  Hezekiah  had 
done  the  thing  that  pleased  the  Lord,  and  was  strong  in 
the  ways  of  David  his  father,  as  Isaiah  the  prophet,  who 
Avas  great  and  faithful  in  his  vision,  had  commanded  him. 
In  his  time  the  sun  went  backward,  and  he  lengthened 
the  king's  life.  He  saw  by  an  excellent  spirit  what 
should  come  to  pass  at  the  last,  and  he  comforted  them 
that  had  mourned  in  Zion.  He  showed  what  should 
come  to  pass  forever,  and  secret  things  or  ever  they 
came  "  (Ecclus.  xlviii,  22-25).  Here,  it  will  be  observed, 
the  reference  is  to  the  part  of  the  prophecy  supposed  to 
be  written  by  the  Deutero-Isaiah,  but  only  one  Isaiah  is 
known.  In  the  canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  also, 
and  in  the  Greek  or  Septuagint  Version,  we  have  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  precisely  as  it  is  in  our  English  Bible, 
all  under  one  name,  all  ascribed  to  one  Isaiah  ;  and  hence 
higher  criticism  is  mistaken  when  it  fancies  the  exist- 
ence of  another  Isaiah. 

19.  Its  favorite  argument,  which  consists  in  forming  a  list 


ISAIAH.  1 8; 

of  words  found  in  the  earlier  chapters  and  not  in  the 
later,  and  in  the  later  chapters  and  not  in  the  earlier,  is 
exceedingly  flimsy,  for  the  same  argument  will  disprove 
the  genuineness  of  any  book  whatever.  Professor  Mead, 
in  his  admirable  satire,  called  Romans  Dissected,  has 
displayed  such  lists  of  words  found  in  the  earlier  and 
later  portions  of  that  epistle ;  and  yet  such  pronounced 
infidels  as  Baur,  Strauss,  and  Renan  have  acknowledged 
it  to  be  the  genuine  production  of  the  apostle  Paul.  The 
principles  of  higher  criticism  have  been  applied  to  the 
works  of  Milton,  Tennyson,  Sir  Walter  Scott,  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, and  of  Dr.  Briggs.  Different  lists  of  words  have 
been  collected  from  different  parts  of  their  writings  ;  and 
if  the  argument  is  worth  anything,  as  applied  to  Isaiah, 
it  proves  that  these  gentlemen  were  not  the  authors  of 
their  own  books.  A  few  years  ago  an  attempt  was  made, 
along  the  same  line  of  reasoning,  to  prove  that  Homer 
did  not  write  his  poems,  but  at  length  the  higher  critics 
were  forced  to  beat  a  sullen  retreat  with  the  consolatory 
remark,  "  Homer  was  not  written  by  Homer,  but  by  a  per- 
son of  the  same  name  who  lived  at  the  same  time."  So 
it  will  be  soon  with  regard  to  the  authorship  of  Isaiah. 
Indeed,  some  of  the  higher  critics  already  admit  that  the 
later  chapters  were  composed  by  a  man  named  Isaiah, 
although  they  are  not  ready  to  confess  that  the  first 
Isaiah  was  the  author,  because  they  are  not  ready  to 
confess  that  he  could  foretell  future  events,  or,  in  other 
words,  because  they  are  infidels. 

20.  The  New  Testament  settles  the  question  decisively 
and  forever  against  the  rash  assertions  of  higher  criti- 
cism. Twenty-one  times  is  Isaiah  quoted,  and  eleven  of 
these  quotations  are  taken  from  the  later  chapters,  and 
directly  referred  to  one  Isaiah  as  the  author.  Compare 
Matt,  iii,  3,  and  Isa.  xl,  3  ;  Matt,  viii,  17,  and  Isa.  liii,  4; 
Matt,  xii,  17,  and  Isa.  xlii,  i  ;  Matt,  xv,  8,  and  Isa.  Iviii, 


1 88  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

1-3  ;  Luke  iii,  4,  and  Isa.  xl,  3  ;  Luke  iv,  17-19,  and  Isa. 
Ixi,  I,  2;  John  i,  23,  and  Isa.  xl,  3;  John  xii,  38,  and 
Isa.  xliii,  i  ;  Acts  viii,  28-32,  and  Isa.  Hii,  7,  8  ;  Rom.,  x, 
16,  and  Isa.  Hii,  i  ;  Rom.  x,  20,  and  Isa.  Ixv,  i,  2.  Higher 
criticism  is  hardly  bestead  and  helpless  to  account  for 
the  fact  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
by  the  apostles  gave  the  sanction  of  divine  authority  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Isaiah 
authorship  of  the  prophecy  that  goes  by  his  name.  It 
first  asserted  that  the  Saviour  knew  better,  but  fell  in 
with  the  popular  and  erroneous  impression  of  the  people. 
But  this  made  him  countenance  what  he  knew  to  be  false. 
Then  it  affirmed  that  he  did  not  know,  or,  as  Rev.  W. 
Hay  Aitken  blasphemously  expressed  it,  he  was  not  as 
good  a  critic  as  Wellhausen.  But  this  assailed  his  divin- 
ity. Its  latest  dodge  is  to  say,  "  He  condescended  not 
to  know ; "  but,  as  an  old  colored  man  wisely  replied, 
"  He  would  have  to  know  all  things  so  as  to  know  what 
not  to  know."  If  his  testimony  and  that  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  to  be  believed  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  there 
was  no  Deutero-Isaiah. 

21.  A  final  argument  against  the  existence  of  such  a 
writer  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  it  is  maintained 
by  a  school  of  criticism  which  from  the  beginning  has 
manifested  a  prejudiced  and  unfriendly  spirit  toward 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  As  already  seen,  it  was  conceived 
in  the  coarse  and  vulgar  infidelity  of  Astruc,  brought  to 
the  birth  by  the  more  refined  infidelity  of  Eichhorn,  and 
ever  since  has  been  employed  to  do  the  work  of  infidelity. 
Many  young  men  are  throwing  up  their  caps  in  its  praise 
and  proclaiming  that  it  saved  them  from  infidelity;  but 
the  question  is,  Did  it  save  them  from  infidelity,  or  con- 
firm them  in  infidelity  with  a  slumbering  conscience? 
An  infidel  is  one  who  does  not  believe  the  Bible,  and 
they  show  by  their  talk  that  they  no  more  believe  the 


ISAIAH.  189 

Bible  now  than  they  did  before ;  they  retain  all  their  ob- 
jections to  the  Bible,  and  still  find  it  consistent  even  to 
become  preachers.  But  whether  preachers  or  professors 
in  seminaries,  they  are  exerting  all  their  influence  to 
destroy  faith  in  the  truth  of  God's  word,  and  are  scatter- 
ing broadcast  the  seed  of  infidelity,  as  the  pastor  of 
almost  every  church  in  the  land  knows  to  his  sorrow. 
The  errors  and  mistakes  which  they  announce  in  public 
and  in  private  as  found  in  the  Bible  are  dug  from  the 
graves  of  Voltaire  and  Tom  Paine,  and  displayed  as 
their  own  discoveries ;  and  yet  none  of  these  supposed 
errors  and  mistakes  are  original,  but  they  have  been 
disproved  again  and  again.  Dr.  Howard  Osgood  tells 
us  that  he  discovered  in  volume  vi  of  Voltaire's  Works  all 
the  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  Scriptures  that 
are  now  paraded  before  the  world  by  unconverted  theo- 
logical professors  in  German  universities,  and  then  re- 
produced by  foolish  theological  professors  in  Great 
Britain  and  America.  Wellhausen  proclaims  that  he  is 
a  polythcist,  and  Kuenen,  so  his  biographer  assures  us, 
made  it  his  purpose  in  life  to  strip  Christianity  of  every 
shred  of  supernaturalism  ;  that  is,  there  is  no  miracle,  no 
prophec}',  no  incarnation,  no  resurrection,  no  revelation. 
Remove  the  kid  glove  of  learning  from  the  paw  of  higher 
criticism,  and  the  tigerish  claws  of  infidelity  will  always 
be  revealed  ;  take  away  the  silk  mask  of  profession,  and 
the  cunning  face  of  Satan  will  ever  be  seen. 

If  the  Lord  is  pleased  to  tarry  longer  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  there  will  surely  come  an  awakening 
from  the  delirium  of  the  hour,  and  real  Christians  who 
have  been  led  to  dishonor  the  Lord  by  profane  han- 
dling of  his  word  will,  like  the  Jews  in  a  day  that  is  yet 
future,  look  upon  him  whom  they  have  pierced  and 
mourn  for  him  as  one  mourneth  for  an  only  son.  Mean- 
while we  can  have  no  fear  concerning  the  final  result  of 


\CjO  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  sharp  conflict.  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  endureth 
forever"  (i  Peter  i,  25).  "Forever,  O  Lord,  thy  word 
is  settled  in  heaven  "  (Psahn  cxix,  Sg).  "  Ls  not  my 
word  hke  as  a  fire?  saith  the  Lord;  and  hke  a  ham- 
mer that  breaketh  the  rock  in  pieces?"  (Jer.  xxiii,  29.) 
"The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken"  (John  x,  35).  "  Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass 
away"  (Matt.  xxi\-,  35).  Many  and  mighty  have  been 
the  efforts  put  forth  through  successive  centuries  to  de- 
stroy the  Bible,  but  all  these  efforts  have  returned  upon 
the  enemy  like  the  waves  of  the  Red  Sea  that  over- 
whelmed Pharaoh  and  his  host,  and  left  the  redeemed 
of  the  Lord  to  raise  their  song  of  deliverance  and  victory 
on  the  shore  looking  toward  the  promised  land.  "  As 
the  rain  cometh  down,  and  the  snow  from  heaven,  and 
returneth  not  thither,  but  Avatereth  the  earth,  and  mak- 
eth  it  bring  forth  and  bud,  that  it  may  give  seed  to  the 
sower  and  bread  to  the  eater :  so  shall  my  word  be  that 
goeth  forth  out  of  my  mouth  :  it  shall  not  return  unto  me 
void;  but  it  shall  accomplish  that  which  I  please,  and 
nrosper  in  the  thing  whereto  I  sent  it  "  (Isa.  Iv,  10,  11). 


THE   BOOK   OF  DANIEL.  IQI 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL -ITS  AUTHORSHIP, 
INTEGRITY,  AND  STRUCTURE. 


BY  PASTOR  GEORGE  S.  BISHOP,  D.D., 
Orange^  N.  J. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  comes  to  us  invested  with  a 
charm,  a  freshness,  and  an  interest  attaching  to  no  other 
book  of  the  Old  Testament  canon. 

One  thing :  because  of  its  scope,  its  tremendous  hor- 
izons. The  prophecies  of  Daniel  are  not  limited  by 
either  time  or  space.  They  relate  to  the  destinies  of 
mighty  empires  and  stretch  forward  into  eras  still  hidden 
in  the  bosom  of  the  future.  They  start  coeval  with 
those  pointed  obelisks  which  represent  the  rays  of  the 
primeval  light,  and  with  those  sphinxlike  bulls — head 
of  a  man  for  intelligence,  body  of  a  beast  for  strength, 
wings  of  a  bird  for  ubiquity — which  have  lately  risen, 
hoary  from  the  grave  of  centuries  ;  and  they  unfold  their 
parti-colored  and  their  vivid  panorama  until  it  reaches  its 
sublimest  consummation  in  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
from  heaven — the  kingdom  and  dominion  and  the  great- 
ness of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven,  and 
the  triumph  of  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High. 

The  prophecies  of  Daniel  have  an  added  interest  be- 
cause the  on-rolling  of  this  almost  infinite  panorama 
takes  in  our  own  affairs — in  fact,  determines  everything, 
chronological,  political,  social,  temporal,  eternal — in  a 
word,  supernatural — for  us.  The  Book  of  Daniel,  there- 
fore, with  the  various  theories  of  its  interpretation,  has 


192  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

always  been  vigorously,  often  warmly,  and  sometimes  even 
bitterly  discussed.  Like  the  historic  plain  of  Esdraelon, 
it  has  been  the  battlefield  of  preterist  and  futurist,  of 
German  neologian,  French  mystic,  and  Anglo-Saxon 
common-sense  expositor.  Each  champion  has  written 
copiously,  boldly,  and  with  intensest  personal  interest, 
and  the  Christian  world  has  read  and  listened  with 
avidity  because  aware  that  these  predictions  touch  sharply 
home  upon  our  times  and  to  the  latest  date  of  our 
modern  political  movements.  Thus  it  has  come  to 
pass  that  the  most  abstruse  arguments  on  Daniel  and 
the  dullest  and  most  prolix  dissertations  have  been 
rendered  popular  through  the  burning  nature  of  the 
Eastern  question  and  through  the  quickened  expecta- 
tion of  finding  in  the  pope,  the  sultan,  or  the  Russian 
czar  the  "little  horn  " — the  "  willful  king  " — the  Anti- 
christ of  the  great  coming  Armageddon. 

A  third  and  further  reason  for  increasing  interest  in 
the  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  position  which  Daniel  himself 
holds  parallel  with  Noah  and  with  Job  as  a  factor  in  one 
of  the  three  great  crises  which  divide  the  history  of  re- 
demption, namely,  the  Deluge,  the  Exodus,  and  Pen- 
tecost. As  Noah  preached  and  suffered  previous  to  the 
deluge  and  the  patriarchal  world,  and  as  Job  preached 
and  suffered  previous  to  the  exodus  and  the  establish- 
ment of  Israel,  so  Daniel  preached  and  suffered  pre- 
vious to  the  advent  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  call- 
ing of  the  Christian  Church.  And  as  we  know  that 
these  three  great  crises — the  deluge,  the  exodus,  the 
Pentecost — were  brought  in  by  extraordinary  Satanic 
device  to  destroy  in  the  antediluvian  corruption,  in 
the  corruption  of  Shem's  posterity,  and  finally  in  the 
Israelitish  captivity  and  corruption,  what  was  left  at 
each  time  of  God's  remnant,  so  the  men  made  conspicu- 
ous— as   it  were,  in  themselves  epitomes  of  these  eras — - 


THE   BOOK   OF  DANIEL.  I93 

acquire  a  character  most  signal  and  invested  with  a 
fascinating  and  a  growing  charm. 

Daniel  is  both  a  mystery  and  a  mystic.  He  is  a 
mystery  for  the  breadth  of  his  view,  for  the  miraculous- 
ness  of  his  life,  and  for  the  world-wide  influence  of  his 
personality.  Like  Noah  and  like  Job,  he  stands  re- 
lated, not  to  a  family  or  to  a  part  of  the  race,  but  to  the 
universal  man.  As  no  other  Hebrew  he  impressed 
himself  upon  the  Gentile  world.  Tradition  tells  us 
that  Confucius  came  to  Babylon  ;  that  Zoroaster  bor- 
rowed from  Daniel;  that  the  Indian  Vedas,  with  their 
teachings  upon  sin  and  on  atonement,  came  from 
Daniel's  light.  Daniel  reformed  the  religion  of  the 
magi  from  Asia  Minor  to  Japan.  To  Daniel  came 
Thales,  Solon,  Pythagoras.  All  the  spiritual  light  there 
was  from  Solon  to  Jesus  was  due  to  this  one  man.  As 
no  other  Hebrew,  save  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  he 
cosmopolitan — Jew,  and  yet  Gentile  as  it  were,  among 
the  Gentiles. 

The  mystery  of  Daniel's  life  lies,  however,  in  this,  that, 
an  astute  statesman — more  than  the  Bismarck,  the  Wal- 
pole,  or  the  Richelieu  of  his  age — he  for  seventy  years 
held  the  helm  of  affairs  and  steered  the  policy  of  world- 
wide kingdoms,  and  with  all  this  yet  lived,  as  few 
beside  him  ever  yet  have  lived,  the  inner  life — the  life 
in  God — the  Holy  Ghost  existence,  as  Calvin  says,  "  like 
a  celestial  angel  among  mortal  men." 

These  things  among  others :  the  tremendous  scope 
of  its  horizons  ;  its  human  quality  and  its  immediate 
electric  bearing  on  events  and  movements  ;  above  all, 
the  mysterious  personality  and  commanding  spiritual  in- 
fluence of  Daniel  himself,  give  to  the  book  which  goes 
by  his  name  a  more  than  superficial,  a  momentous — a 
more  than  transient,  an  abiding — interest.  Let  us  con- 
sider, then,  the  Book  of  Daniel. 


194  ANTi-HlGHER   CRITICISM. 

I.  Its  Authorship  and  Place  in  the  Canon.  II.  Its  In- 
tegrity.    IIL  Its  Structure  and  Practical  Value. 

I.  Its  Authorship  and  Place  in  the  Canon. 

The  books  which  go  to  make  up  the  Old  Testament 
were  written  at  intervals  during  the  ten  centuries  which 
stretch  from  Moses  to  Malachi.  They  are  thirty-nine  in 
number  as  we  find  them  in  our  English  Bibles,  but 
twenty-two  as  they  are  reckoned  in  the  Hebrew,  to 
correspond  with  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet. 
The  latter  number  is  arrived  at  by  grouping  several  of 
the  books  together,  as  the  two  books  of  Samuel,  of  the 
Kings,  and  of  Chronicles,  the  twelve  minor  prophets,  etc. 

These  twenty-two  books  have  from  the  first  been  one 
and  invariable.  They  were  all  written  in  the  Hebrew 
character  and  are  the  only  books  extant,  from  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  written  in  Hebrew.  These  books,  and 
these  alone,  composed  the  canon  at  the  time  of  our 
Lord.  They  are  enumerated  and  described  by  Josephus 
in  his  book  against  Apion,  where  he  says,  "  During  so 
many  ages  as  have  already  passed  no  one  has  been  so 
bold  as  either  to  add  anything  to  them,  to  take  any- 
thing from  them,  or  to  make  any  change  in  them." 
They  are  equally  indorsed  by  the  Talmud  and  by  the 
apocryphal  book  "The  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sirach," 
as  well  as  by  the  New  Testament,  in  Luke  xii,  44. 
So  that  it  is  plain  enough  what  was  and  is  the  Old 
Testament  canon ;  and  of  this  canon  Daniel  is  and 
always  was  a  part.  Not  only  this,  but  Daniel  wrote  the 
book.     Why  do  we  think  so? 

I.  Because  he  claims  to  be  the  writer.  "  The  vision 
appeared  unto  me,  even  unto  me,  Daniel."  "  I  Daniel 
alone  saw  the  vision."  "  And  he  informed  me,  and  talked 
with  me,  and  said  unto  me,  O  Daniel,  I  am  now  come 
forth  to  give  thee  skill  and  understanding.  ...  I  am  come 


TtiE   BOOIv   OF   DANIEL.  iQ^ 

forth  to  show  thee  ;  for  thou  art  greatly  beloved  :  there- 
fore understand  the  matter,  and  consider  the  vision."  In 
no  book  of  the  Bible  is  the  personality  of  the  writer  so 
distinctly  asserted,  so  sharply  made  prominent. 

Not  only  so,  but — 

2.  Correlative  testimony  as  to  the  authorship  of  the 
book  comes  from  the  earliest  secular  witness,  the  Apocr)'- 
pha,  as  in  i  Maccabees  ii,  29,  the  Book  of  Barucb,  the 
Song  of  the  Three  Children,  Susanna,  and  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,  all  of  which  books  confirm  the  fact  that  Daniel 
was  the  principal  and  only  prophet  of  the  time  in  which 
he  lived,  and  that  the  book  which  claims  to  be  written  by 
him  and  to  which  they  refer  is  genuine.  Corroborative 
testimony  also  comes  from  Josephus,  who  gives  it  as  the 
current  belief  of  his  day  that  the  book  was  written  by 
Daniel,  "one  of  the  greatest  of  the  prophets."  To  this 
must  be  added  the  direct  testimony  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  Matt,  xxiv,  15,  "When  ye  therefore  shall  see 
the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet."     Objection  has  been  made  to  this — 

First,  that  Daniel,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  does  not  ap- 
pear among  the  prophetical  books  but  in  the  third  di- 
vision, called  the  Psalms  or  Hagiographa. 

In  order  to  answer  this  objection  it  is  necessary  to 
recall  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  Bible  has  existed  from 
the  first  in  three  great  divisions  called  the  Law,  Prophets, 
and  Psalms — Ketubim  or  Hagiographa:  i.  The  Law, 
which  includes  the  five  books  of  Moses.  2.  The  Proph- 
ets, former  and  latter,  which  includes  Joshua,  Judges, 
I  and  2  Samuel,  I  and  2  Kings,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Eze- 
kiel,  and  the  twelve  minor  prophets.  3.  A  third  di- 
vision, which  includes  all  the  rest  of  the  books,  among 
them  Daniel,  which  appears  in  its  chronological  place  be- 
tween Esther  and  Ezra. 

In  this  threefold  division   of  the  Law,  Prophets,  and 


196  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Hagiographa  or  Ketubim,  Daniel  appears  in  the  latter 
division,  and  this  is  the  brunt  of  the  objection — he  is  not 
among  the  prophetical  books. 

The  answer  to  this  objection  is — 

1.  What  difference  does  it  make  where  Daniel  appears 
in  the  list  provided  he  is  there? 

2.  There  are  reasons  why  Daniel,  although  one  of  the 
four  great  prophets,  should  not  be  reckoned  with  Isaiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  Jeremiah. 

One  thing:  because  Daniel  was  not  only  a  prophet, 
but  first  of  all  an  historian  ;  and  his  book  for  this  reason 
differs  from  that  of  the  other  prophets,  and  the  difference 
requires  to  be  marked.  It  will  not  do  to  put  him,  there- 
fore, with  the  other  three  great  prophets,  because  that  is 
to  confound  him  with  them  ;  nor  will  it  do  to  put  him 
with  the  minor  prophets,  for  he  is  greater  than  they.  So 
that  no  place  is  left  for  him  but  the  very  place  where  he 
appears,  namely,  between  Esther  and  Ezra. 

Another  thing :  Daniel's  place  in  the  economy  of  God, 
like  that  of  Noah  and  Job,  is  altogether  unique.  The 
world  was  then  approaching  a  crisis  more  violent  than 
any  since  the  exodus  or  even  the  deluge.  The  chief 
empires  of  the  world  were  about  suddenly  to  disappear — 
Assyria,  that  ancient  kingdom  which  went  back  to  the 
days  of  Noah  ;  proud  Tyre,  with  her  ten  thousand  ships  ; 
even  Egypt,  that  mysterious  power  so  long  the  terror  and 
the  admiration  of  the  nations,  and  with  her  Damascus, 
Ammon,  Moab,  Edom.  In  short,  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
his  Babylon,  the  more  than  Napoleon  and  first  empire 
of  that  day,  were  rising  to  the  summit  of  greatness  and 
to  the  forefront  of  command. 

Capping  the  political,  social,  moral  situation,  stands,  as 
always,  the  prophet  of  God.  Daniel  closes  prophecy  ; 
he  opens  the  philosophy  of  history.  He  acts  the  part  of 
a  commentator  upon  what  has  already  been  written,  and 


THE   BOOK    OF   DANIEL.  I97 

of  a  herald  of  new,  beyond  even  prophetic,  apocalyptic 
horizons.  Daniel  is,  in  fact,  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  model  type  of  St.  John's  Revelation. 
Without  it  the  Revelation  would  not  have  been  intel- 
ligible, nor  could  it,  indeed,  have  ever  been  written. 
There  is  a  change  and  a  felt  change  when  Daniel 
comes  in,  even  as  there  is  when  Patmos,  with  its  un- 
earthly disclosures,  comes  in.  Daniel  is  the  St.  John  the 
greatly  beloved  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  St.  John  is  the 
Daniel  the  beloved  sharer  of  the  secrets  of  Christ  in  the 
New. 

St.  John  is  a  prophet,  but  he  transcends  the  prophet. 
The  prophet  is  always  on  earth  and  sees,  even  into  the 
future,  along  the  perspective  of  earthly  horizons.  It  is 
so  with  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel — with  the  greatest  of 
the  mere  prophets.  It  is  not  so  with  Daniel,  nor  with 
St.  John.  They  are  lifted  out  of  the  body  into 
living,  conscious  converse  and  even  contact  with  the 
things  which  they  see.  They  are  prophets  of  the 
heavenly  horizons,  seeing  along  a  level  entirely  apart 
and  above. 

A  second  objection  to  the  authorship  of  Daniel  is  that 
his  name  is  not  found  among  other  names  of  Old  Testa- 
ment worthies  in  the  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  chap- 
ter xlix. 

In  reply  to  this,  it  may  be  said — 

1.  The  names  of  Jewish  heroes  mentioned  in  the  Wis- 
dom of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  chapter  xlix,  are  not  a  list  of 
writers  or  of  books,  but  only  a  panegyric  upon  certain 
men  ;  among  them,  Enoch,  Shem,  Phineas,  Caleb,  Zerub- 
babel,  and  others  looked  at  from  the  outward  or  the 
active  side. 

2.  Ezra,  Mordecai,  and  all  the  minor  prophets  are  left 
out  of  this  list,  as  well  as  Daniel. 

3.  The  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  is  a  secular  history, 


198  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  secular  history  nowhere  mentions  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Herodotus  himself  says  nothing  about  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Was  there,  therefore,  no  such  king? 

A  third  objection  made  to  the  authorship  of  Daniel  is 
that  he  speaks  in  the  first  part  of  his  book  in  the  third 
person  and  in  the  latter  part  in  the  first.  There  must, 
therefore,  be  two  Daniels,  a  Daniel  of  the  third  and  a 
Daniel  of  the  first  person,  one  who  saj's  "  he,"  and  one 
who  says  "  I." 

A  reply  to  this  is :  that  this  use  of  the  personal 
pronouns  is  not  peculiar  to  Daniel.  It  is  the  cus- 
tom with  all  the  Hebrew  prophets.  Historical  por- 
tions are  written  in  the  third  person,  which  turns  at- 
tention from  the  writer  to  the  fact ;  but  visions  and 
revelations,  where  is  needed  the  additional  weight  of 
the  eyewitness,  are  spoken  about  in  the  first.  Pre- 
cisely the  same  objection  might  be  made  to  the  writ- 
ings of  St.  John,  who  conceals  himself  in  the  narrative 
under  the  expressions  "  that  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved," 
"that  disciple  who  lay  on  Jesus'  breast,"  "  that  disciple 
who  was  known  unto  the  high  priest,"  but  who  speaks 
out  boldly,  "  I  John  saw  these  things  and  heard  them," 
where  the  revelation  needs  the  personal  attestation  and 
moral  weight  of  a  witness. 

These  and  such  like  objections  show  the  animus  of 
the  school  of  what  is  called  the  higher  criticism,  in  the 
determination,  at  all  costs,  to  get  rid  of  as  much  of  the 
divine  in  the  Scripture  as  possible. 

Notice  again  these  objections  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  book  and  to  the  authorship  of  Daniel : 

1.  His  book  is  not  in  the  right  place  in  the  list. 

2.  A  secular  writer,  living  two  or  three  centuries  after 
him,  in  mentioning  at  random  certain  names  of  Hebrew 
heroes,  leaves  him  out. 

3.  He  says   "  he  "  and    "  it  was  so  and  so,"  when  re- 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  199 

cording  events,  and  he  says  "  I  "  when  telling  his  dreams, 
revelations,  and  visions. 

What  nonsense  !  Yes,  it  would  be  nonsense  were  it 
not  worse  than  this,  were  it  not  an  endeavor  to  get  rid, 
not  only  of  Daniel,  but  God  ;  that  is,  by  discrediting  the 
witness,  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  rejection  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  book  as  fabulous,  irrational,  impossible — as 
Hitzig  says,  "  an  aimless  and  extravagant  display  of  won- 
ders." Thus  God  from  history  and  miracle  from  provi- 
dence are  banished. 

II.  Its  Integrity. 

We  now  come  to  the  date  and  the  integrity  of  Daniel. 
As  to  the  date,  that  is  fixed  by  the  authorship.  Daniel 
claims  to  have  "  continued  "  from  before  the  time  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  to  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  and  to  have 
received  a  revelation  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus.  He 
says  Nebuchadnezzar  promoted  him  to  be  ruler  over  the 
whole  province  of  Babylon  and  to  be  chief  of  the  gov- 
ernors over  the  wise  men  that  were  in  Babylon.  He 
says  he  was  employed  in  matters  affecting  the  kingdom 
in  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar,  and  that,  on  the  last  day 
of  his  life,  that  king  appointed  him  the  third  ruler  in  the 
kingdom.  During  the  obscure  reign  of  Darius  the  Mede, 
Daniel  represents  himself  still  as  one  of  the  chief  rulers 
of  the  kingdom,  and  he  adds  that  he  prospered,  or,  in 
other  words,  that  he  was  eminent,  in  the  days  of  Cyrus 
the  Persian. 

Not  only  so,  but  Daniel  shows  that  he  is  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  very  times  with  which  he  is  dealing, 
with  the  many  minute  details  of  the  Bab}'lonian  life. 
He  is  aware,  for  instance,  of  the  three  classes  of  wise 
men  mentioned  besides  the  astrologers,  namely,  the 
hartumim,  the  hakamim,  and  the  ashaphim  ;  these  three 
ranks  of  magi  modern  discoveries  prove  to  have  existed 


200  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

in  Babylon,  although  profane  history  passes  them  over 
in  silence.  Here  is  a  proof,  therefore,  of  the  integrity  of 
Daniel,  which  bridges  the  chasm  of  unknown  and  buried 
centuries  and  carries  us  straight  back  to  Daniel's  own 
day. 

Daniel  accurately  describes  the  customs  of  Babylon, 
the  freedom  of  woman  in  society,  exceptional  in  the 
Orient  and  unknown  in  the  later  empire  of  Persia.  He 
describes  the  Babylonian  dress  correctly  in  the  case  of 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego.  He  shows  that  he 
is  acquainted  with  phrases  current  at  the  time,  as  the 
"  dissolving  of  knots,"  the  "  forfeiting  of  the  head."  The 
punishment  of  fire,  too,  he  mentions,  which  belonged 
alone  to  Babylon  from  the  time  of  Nimrod,  and  which 
would  have  been  impossible  among  the  Persians,  who 
worshiped  fire,  or  among  the  lighter,  more  poetic  Greeks. 

Daniel,  too,  wonderfully  describes  the  character  of 
Nebuchadnezzar — that  mixture  of  Napoleon  and  Alex- 
ander the  Great — and  the  absolute  autocracy  of  his  king- 
dom ;  a  state  of  things  in  which  a  man  known  to  be  a 
maniac  rules  without  the  thought  of  a  change,  without 
a  regency,  without  a  parliament,  and  with  the  abject  fear 
of  his  subjects  for  seven  long  years.  None  of  these 
things  could  have  been  invented  or  grouped  thus  to- 
gether by  the  later  forger  of  a  pretended  document. 

Yet  this  is  what  is  claimed  with  reference  to  Daniel. 
Indeed,  to  state  the  general  position  of  the  Briggsian  or 
advanced  critics,  "  The  great  bulk  of  the  Old  Testament 
writings,  and  even  laws,  belongs  to  the  exilic  or  the 
post-exilic  period."  No  psalms,  for  example,  save  one 
or  two,  are  pre-exilic,  that  is,  before  the  captivity.  The 
Pentateuch  w^as  written  about  a  thousand  years  after 
Moses,  and  none  of  the  psalms  date  back  so  far  as  David. 

This  general  position  of  the  advanced  school,  repre- 
sented by  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Robertson  Smith,  and  by 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  20I 

smaller  men  in  this  country,  decides,  of  course,  for  theiir 
the  era  of  Daniel;  that  is,  that  the  book,  instead  of  being 
written  somewhere  about  five  hundred  and  fifty,  was 
written  somewhere  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  Christ ;  in  other  words,  the  book  was  not  written 
in  Daniel's  time  at  all,  but  is  a  forgery  appearing  in  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  by  some  person  or  persons 
unknown. 

The  assertion  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  a  "forgery" 
is  not  a  new  one,  but  is  as  old  as  the  days  of  Jerome, 
who  quotes  it  from  Porphyry  and  triumphantly  confutes 
it.  Since  that  time  the  old  skepticism  on  this  point 
has  now  and  again  reared  its  head,  as  at  present  it  does 
in  the  German-Anglican  neologianism  of  our  day.  The 
only  reason  Porphyry  gives  for  his  barefaced  assertion 
is  that  in  his  judgment  the  prophecies  recorded  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Daniel  are  far  too  minute.  "  No 
one  could  have  predicted  beforehand  a  picture  so  like  a 
photograph.  The  man  who  wrote  it  must  have  lived 
afterward,  or  must  have  sketched,  pen  in  hand,  from  the 
actual  picture.  No  man  could  possibly  be  so  accurate 
four  hundred  years  before  the  events." 

In  other  words — think  of  it  ! — -the  very  truthfulness, 
known  truthfulness,  conceded  truthfulness  of  Daniel  is 
made  an  argument  against  him.  Suppose  the  events  had 
not  been  accurate,  or  had  been  only  vaguely  hinted  at, 
then  they  would  have  said,  "  It  is  not  prophecy  at  all. 
but  guesswork,  the  raving  of  insane  conjecture." 

Now,  look  a  moment ;  see  where  this  puts  Daniel.  It 
is  said  by  our  advanced  critics,  "  O,  we  do  not  so  much 
impugn  the  book  itself;  when  it  was  written  does  not 
make  so  much  difference.  We  are  willing  to  accept  the 
writer's  statements  as  on  the  whole  true,  only  he  was  not 
and  could  not  be  Daniel." 

In  other  words,  we  are  asked  in  cold  blood  to  believe 


202  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

that  a  true  prophet  of  God  can  write  a  book  in  one  age 
and  claim  to  have  written  it  in  another  ;  that  is,  when  he 
says,  "  I  Daniel  saw  these  things,  and  the  vision  came 
to  me  Daniel,"  he  can  be  a  true  prophet  of  the  Lord 
Jehovah  and  lie,  and,  lying  on  the  main  fact,  the  rest  of 
his  book  can  yet  be  reliable. 

The  argument  for  its  integrity  rises  from  the  book 
itself  to  grand  unanswerable  and  unapproachable  cli- 
macteric in  the  direct  assertion  of  our  Lord. 

Not  only  does  Christ  indorse  the  canon — the  exist- 
ing volume  of  the  Holy  Scripture — as  in  his  post-ascen- 
sion discourse  with  the  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus, 
when  he  distinctly  mentions  the  threefold  division, 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms ;  and  when, 
"  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded 
unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself" — not  only  does  he  indorse  the  whole  canon,  but 
he  indorses  this  book.  In  his  prophetic  discourse  in 
Matt,  xxiv  he  says,  "  When  ye  therefore  shall  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet,  stand  in  the  holy  place,  (whoso  readeth,  let  him 
understand.)" 

What  can  be  more  decisive  than  this?  Our  Saviour 
mingles  his  own  predictions  with  those  of  Daniel,  refer- 
ring to  Daniel  by  name,  and  giving  him  the  title  of 
prophet.  This  is  indeed  authority  higher  than  any  other — 
altogether  peerless  and  apart ;  so  that  on  the  solitary 
ground  of  this  divine  assertion  we  may  take  our  stand, 
careless  of  any  difficulty  or  objection  which  may  be  sug- 
gested as  against  the  simple  declaration  of  the  Son  of 
God. 

Will  it  be  imagined  that  difficulty  and  objection  have 
already  been  suggested  ?  that  not  even  the  sanctity  of 
God  incarnate  has  been  sufficient  to  shield  him  from  the 
aspersions  of  men    who  reverence  nothing,  who  do  not. 


THE   BOOK    OF   DANIEL.  203 

scruple  to  say  that  our  Lord  in  citing  Daniel  the  prophet 
meant  nothing  more  than  to  echo  the  false  but  the 
popular  current  opinion  around  him?      Notice: 

1.  The  statement  of  our  Lord  is  direct — "  Spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet." 

2.  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  used  by  our  Lord  as  author- 
ity ;  that  is,  it  is  so  quoted  by  him,  and  in  connection 
with  his  own  prophecy,  as  to  show  how  Christ  himself  re- 
garded the  book,  namely,  authentic  and  genuine. 

3.  The  quoting  of  Daniel  as  authority  was  not  to  the 
people  at  large,  where  popular  sentiment  need  be  con- 
sidered or  popular  impression  regarded,  but  was  to  the 
disciples  alone,  and  in  one  of  our  Saviour's  last  inter- 
views, and  when  his  sole  endeavor  was  to  get  before 
them  the  truth,  and  in  the  truest  light. 

4.  If  our  blessed  Lord,  for  any  reason  whatever, 
stated  as  true  what  was  false,  namely,  that  Daniel  wrote 
Daniel,  and  that  Daniel  was  a  prophet  of  God,  when 
Daniel  did  not  write  Daniel  and  Daniel  was  not  a 
prophet  of  God,  where  does  that  put  our  Lord  ?  Does  it 
not  convict  him,  and  squarely,  of  a  lie?  of  a  lie  told 
from  policy;  that  is,  the  double-shuffle— the  meanest 
and  the  most  contemptible  of  lies  ?  Does  it  not  make  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  a  scoundrel? 

Christ  indorses  Daniel — "  Spoken  of  by  Daniel."  He 
indorses  him  as  authority  especially  on  the  Apocalypse — 
"  Daniel  the  prophet."  He  indorses  him  by  throwing 
himself  back  on  him — Son  of  God  as  he  is — in  speaking 
of  a  point  of  the  Apocalypse,  namely,  the  abomination  of 
desolation — by  throwing  himself  back  on  him  as  his  sole 
support  and  witness. 

But  the  testimony  of  our  blessed  Lord  is  even  more 
significant  and  solemn.  Not  only  does  he  indorse  Dan- 
iel and  throw  himself  back  for  confirmation  upon  Dan- 
iel, but    he    makes    the   pivotal    question   of   his   deity 


204  ANTi-Hir;iii-:R  criticism. 

turn  upon  the  application  of  a  prophecy  of  Daniel  to 
himself. 

On  what  ground  did  the  high  priest  and  the  council 
charge  our  blessed  Lord  with  blasphemy  ?  On  this 
ground,  that  he  had  answered,  "  Hereafter  ye  shall  see 
the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven." 

Jesus  and  the  Sanhedrim  both  alike  admitted  the 
authority  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  On  the  common 
ground,  then,  of  that  authority,  in  that  most  solemn  hour 
of  his  existence,  when  standing  before  the  high  priest 
for  judgment  as  to  his  character,  credentials,  and  claim, 
he  throws  himself  back.  And  it  is  on  the  ground  of  the 
integrity  of  this  book,  which  he  cites  as  a  witness  for  and 
which  they  urge  as  a  witness  against  him — on  that 
ground  alone — that  the  question  of  his  deity  is  by  them 
settled,  and  to  their  own  condemnation.  Christ  is  divine 
and  Daniel's  book  is  divine,  and  the  Christ  of  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Caiaphas,  and  of  the  coming  revelation,  is 
that  very  Son  of  man  whom  to  claim  one's  self  to  be,  and 
claim  it  falsely,  is,  as  the  Sanhedrim  charged  it,  blas- 
phemy, because  the  "  Son  of  man  "  of  Daniel  is  indeed 
the  very  Son  of  God.  The  deity  of  Christ  then  is  by 
Christ  himself,  and  in  the  hour  of  most  momentous  crisis, 
made  to  hang  on  Daniel,  and  the  integrity  of  Revelation 
itself  as  an  inspired  communication  from  God  is  sus- 
pended and  turns  on  this  book. 

But  while  the  testimony  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
stands  all-sufficient  and  conclusive  it  does  not  forbid  a 
regard  to  certain  subordinate  facts  which  are  not,  indeed, 
needed,  as  nothing  can  be  needed  to  confirm  divine  au- 
thority, the  dictum  of  the  Eternal,  but  only  as  helpful  in 
showing  how  absurd  are  all  the  theories  of  vain  objectors 
and  how  easily  they  may  be  refuted  even  on  their  own 
shallow  grounds. 


THE   BOOK   OF  DANIEL.  205 

The  book  speaks  for  itself.  Christ  speaks  for  it.  So 
do  contemporary  witnesses.  Looking  back  to  the  age 
when  the  author  of  Daniel  professes  to  have  lived,  we  find 
independent  evidence  that  such  a  person  and  name  were 
then  known. 

Ezekiel  (chapter  xiv)  mentions  Daniel  along  with 
Noah  and  Job  as  equally  prominent,  and  mentions  him 
twice.  Again  in  the  same  prophet,  in  chapter  xxviii, 
verse  3,  the  Lord  says  to  the  prince  of  Tyrus,  "  Be- 
hold, thou  art  wiser  than  Daniel ;  there  is  no  secret 
that  they  can  hide  from  thee."  Thus  Ezekiel,  a  con- 
temporary, recognizes  Daniel  as  preeminent  in  holiness, 
and  as  one  to  whom  secret  things  were  especially  made 
known. 

The  Septuagint,  the  Greek  translation  from  the 
Hebrew,  made  about  three  hundred  years  before  Christ, 
contains  Daniel.  How  the  book  could  have  gotten  into 
that  version  if  not  at  the  time  extant  and  received  as 
authentic,  let  the  objectors  make  known. 

Alexander  the  Great  saw  the  Book  of  Daniel  three 
hundred  and  thirty-two  years  before  Christ.  When 
Alexander  approached  Jerusalem,  intending  to  punish 
the  Jews  for  their  attachment  to  the  Persian  Darius, 
Jaddua,  the  high  priest,  met  him  at  the  head  of  a  pro- 
cession, so  says  Josephus,  and  showed  to  him  the  proph- 
ecy of  Daniel,  where  Grecia,  the  he  goat  of  Macedon, 
conquers  the  ram  of  Persia.  Alexander  was  so  pleased 
with  this  that  he  spared  Jerusalem — an  actual  fact — and 
treated  the  Jews  from  that  time  on — another  well  known 
fact — with  a  peculiar  honor.  Nehemiah  (chapter  xii) 
mentions  this  Jaddua,  and  places  his  date  in  the  reign 
of  Darius  the  Persian. 

The  New  Testament,  also,  outside  of  our  Lord's 
witness,  quotes  Daniel  (Heb.  xi,  33,  34).  "  Stopped  the 
mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,"  evidently 
14 


2o6  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

refers  to  Daniel  in  the  den  of  lions,  and  to  the  martyr- 
dom of  Shadrach  and  his  companions. 

The  monuments,  bricks,  and  inscriptions  within  the 
last  century  discovered  and  unearthed  upon  the  ground 
itself;  the  history  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  as  it  has  been 
disentombed  by  the  labors  of  Botta  and  Layard  and  res- 
cued from  the  intricacies  of  the  cuneiform  or  nail-headed 
inscriptions  by  Hincks  and  by  Rawlinson ;  the  Nimroud 
Obelisk  in  the  British  Museum  ;  the  palatial  chambers  of 
Khorsabad  and  Kouyunjik,  the  winged  bull  of  Persepolis  ; 
the  statue  of  Cyrus  at  Moorghaub  ;  the  magnificent  sculp- 
ture of  Darius  at  Behistun — all  are  vocal  proof,  more  than 
audible  echoes,  from  contemporaneous  ages  of  the  truth- 
fulness of  Daniel's  predictions.  A  visit  to  the  East  In- 
dia House  in  London  will  make  us  acquainted  with  the 
standard  inscription  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  containing  a  list 
of  all  the  temples  built  by  the  king  in  the  different 
towns  and  cities  of  Babylonia,  naming  the  particular  gods 
and  goddesses  to  whom  the  shrines  were  dedicated :  a 
journey  from  Bagdad  to  the  Birs  Nimroud  would  show 
us  every  ruin  to  be  of  the  age  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
The  testimony  here  is  decisive.  "  I  have  examined  the 
bricks  in  sit2i,''  says  Colonel  Rawlinson,  "  belonging  per- 
haps to  one  hundred  towns  and  cities  within  this  area 
of  about  one  hundred  miles  in  length  and  thirty  or  forty 
miles  in  breadtli,  and  I  have  found  on  every  brick  the  one 
inscription,  '  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  son  of  Nabopolassar, 
king  of  Babylon.'  " 

In  addition  to  these  magnificent  arguments,  led  in  by 
Daniel  himself,  confirmed  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
attested  by  Ezekiel,  by  the  Septuagint,  by  contempora- 
neous history,  by  the  New  Testament,  and  by  the  bricks, 
monuments,  and  inscriptions  in  situ  " — in  addition  to 
these  stands  always  unassailable,  immovable,  that  mute 
but  impressive  negation  on  which  all  hammers  are  broken, 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  20/ 

the  burden  of  proof  shifted  on  to  the  critic,  the  anvil-like 
onus  probandi. 

Turning  to  the  left  at  the  foot  of  the  Corso,  one  finds 
himself  at  once  amid  the  remains  of  the  forum  of  Trajan. 
A  beautiful  column  stands  there  covered  with  a  spiral 
band  of  bas-reliefs,  illustrative  of  the  Dacian  wars,  and 
exhibiting  in  various  attitudes  the  figure  of  the  tri- 
umphant emperor.  This  column,  history  and  tradition 
tell  us,  was  erected  in  the  year  1 14  after  Christ  by  the 
Roman  Senate  and  people  to  Trajan. 

Why  should  I,  standing  at  the  base  of  that  column 
written  over  with  those  storied  deeds,  deny  that  fact  or 
doubt  it  ?  If  I  do  deny  or  doubt,  must  the  world  go  to 
work  and  convince  me?  Must  history  halt  for  me? 
Must  tradition  wait  for  me?  And,  while  I  lounge  there 
lazily  denying  and  doubting — for  nothing  is  lazier  than 
are  denial  and  doubt — must  all  the  ages  get  up  early  in 
the  morning  and  wear  out  their  energies  in  the  endeavor 
to  confute  my  silly  doubt  ? 

If  I  deny  the  fact  let  me  show  why.  Is  not  that  hon- 
est ?  And  until  I  have  shown  why,  let  me,  in  presence 
of  the  venerable,  self-affirming  past,  be  modest. 

Daniel  says  he  wrote  Daniel.  The  inscription  itself 
upon  a  monument  is  enough  for  ingenuous  men.  Why 
should  I  suspect  a  lie  simply  for  the  sake  of  suspicion, 
when  the  honest  truth — no  doubt  of  it — stands  confronting 
both  me  and  high  heaven  ?  God  help  me  !  Why  should 
I  make  myself  a  gratuitous  Satan  and  echo  the  question 
whose  badness  reveals  me,  "Yea,  hath  God  said?" 

There  is  a  book  in  the  world  called  Daniel.  For  two 
thousand  five  hundred  years  that  book  has  been  received 
as  part  of  the  revelation  of  God.  For  two  thousand  five 
hundred  years  that  book  has  come  to  us  professing  to  be 
the  work  of  a  certain  prophet  named  Daniel.  Daniel 
is   written    into  the  book  as  no  Trajan  is  written  into 


208  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Trajan's  column.  There  is  no  name  of  Trajan  on  the 
column;  only  a  supposed  likeness  of  Trajan.  There  is 
a  name  in  Daniel,  written  along  with  the  personality  of 
the  prophet  right  through  the  book.  It  is  the  name  of 
Daniel  himself.  Now  let  the  man  who  challenges  the 
integrity  of  this  book  account  for  its  existence  outside 
its  own  profession;  let  him  account  for  the  opinion 
which  sustains  Daniel  if  that  opinion  be  f^ilse  ;  let  him 
account  for  a  book  which  carries  on  its  face  its  own  cer- 
tificate by  bringing  a  better  certificate,  one  more  legible, 
one  more  credible,  if  he  can. 

The  book  stands  until  some  one  has  annihilated  the 
book — the  book  in  every  part  of  it,  the  book  in  every 
fragment — until  he  has  pulverized  it,  ground  all  the 
Daniel  out  of  it  as  all  the  Trajan  might  be  ground  out 
of  the  thirty-four  blocks  of  the  column,  and  into  fine  dust. 

But  it  has  been  objected  to  the  reliability  and  integ- 
rity of  Daniel — 

I.  That  chapter  ii  states  that  Nebuchadnezzar  dreamed 
his  great  dream  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  while 
chapter  i  says  that  three  years  at  least  before  that  Neb- 
uchadnezzar was  reigning,  and  that  he  carried  away  Dan- 
iel and  others  from  Jerusalem,  captives  to  Babylon.  "A 
plain  contradiction,"  clamor  the  critics.  It  is  no  con- 
tradiction, for  Nebuchadnezzar  did  reign  for  some  years 
before,  conjointly  with  Nabopolassar,  his  father.  "  The 
second  year  of  his  reign,"  in  the  second  chapter,  dates 
from  the  time  of  his  father's  death,  when  he  began  to 
reign  as  sole  sovereign.  Not  before  that  was  he  the 
autocrat,  the  head  of  gold. 

"  But  why  not  say  so  in  Daniel  ?  "  Yes,  and  go  on  to 
explain  and  take  up  three  or  four  chapters  in  bootless, 
irrelevant  rubbish  ?  Why  not  ?  Why  not  better  leave 
us  to  suppose  that  Daniel  knew  what  he  was  talking 
about  and  pass  on  to  the  practical  lesson  at  hand? 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  209 

2.  A  second  objection  against  the  integrity  of  Daniel 
is  brought  from  the  historians  Berosus  and  Abydenus, 
who  contradict  his  statement  about  Belshazzar,  and  say 
that  Nabonadius,  and  not  Belshazzar,  was  the  last  king 
of  Babylon,  and  that  he  was  not  slain,  but  was  spared 
by  Darius,  and  had  an  honorable  abode  in  Caramania 
assigned  him. 

Our  reply  to  this  objection  is  to  ask.  Who  was  Berosus, 
and  who  was  Abydenus  ?  All  that  is  known  of  these  men 
is  that  they  are  supposed  to  have  lived  two  or  three 
hundred  years  after  Daniel's  time,  and  that  quotations 
from  their  works,  or,  rather,  references  to  their  works,  are 
made  by  Josephus  and  by  Eusebius.  That  is  positively 
all  we  know  about  them,  namely,  that  they  are  quoted 
by  men  who,  notwithstanding  the  quotations,  hold  by 
Daniel  as  true. 

The  fact  as  we  find  it  recorded  upon  cylinder  tablets 
recently  discovered  in  the  ruins  of  Umgheir,  the  old 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  appears  to  be  this  :  Belshazzar  was 
the  son  of  Nabonadius,  and  according  to  the  Babylonian 
custom  was  associated  with  his  father  in  the  empire. 
When  Cyrus  came  against  Babylon,  Nabonadius  went 
out  to  meet  him,  bravely  fought  with  him,  and  was  con- 
quered by  him  at  Borsippa.  Cyrus  then  passed  on,  took 
Babylon,  put  the  young  and  profligate  Belshazzar  to 
death,  but  left  the  old  Nabonadius  alive,  whom  he 
retired  to  Caramania,  where  he  died. 

3.  It  is  objected  to  the  integrity  of  Daniel  that  the 
New  Testament  does  not  quote  from  the  first  six  chap- 
ters, and  that  these,  therefore,  are  not  authentic. 

The  reply  is  that  this  is  untrue.  What  are  our 
Saviour's  words  in  Matt,  xxi,  44 — "  Whosoever  shall  fall 
on  this  stone  shall  be  broken  :  but  on  whomsoever  it 
shall  fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder  " — what  are  these 
but  an  allusion  of  the  plainest  kind  to  Nebuchadnezzar's 


210  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

dream  about  the  stone?  So,  too,  in  Hebrews,  what 
is  the  reference  to  quenching  the  violence  of  fire,  if 
not  to  Dan.  iii,  and  what  the  reference  to  stopping 
the  mouths  of  Hons,  a  literal  translation  from  Daniel, 
if  not  an  allusion  to  the  scene  of  the  den  in  the  sixth 
chapter?  The  New  Testament  as  distinctly  sanctions 
chapters  ii,  iii,  and  vi  of  Daniel  as  it  does  chapters  vii 
and  ix,  where  it  speaks  of  the  abomination  of  desolation 
and  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man.  Not  another 
book  in  the  Old  Testament  is  so  indorsed  through  and 
through,  from  end  to  end,  by  the  New  Testament  as  is 
Daniel. 

4.  Objection  is  made  from  the  fact  that  certain  Greek 
words  are  found  in  Daniel,  and  that  therefore  a  part  of 
Daniel  must  have  been  written  later  or  interpolated  ;  for 
the  Chaldeans  knew  nothing  of  the  Greeks  at  all.  The 
reply  to  this  objection  is  that  it  is  quite  too  childish  for 
a  labored  refutation. 

(i.)  The  four  words  supposed  to  be  Greek  may  not  be. 
The  similarity  of  sound  and  form  may  be  but  a  fancy. 

(2.)  The  four  Greek  words  are  the  names  of  musical 
instruments.  They  are  Din^p,  Ki^apiq;  N33p,  oafij3vK7]; 
l^iriJDS,  ipaXTijpiov  ;     N^JSblD,  oviJ(l)G)via. 

Grant  that  these  are,  as  indeed  they  seem  to  be,  Greek 
words,  what  in  that  case  more  natural — since  Greece  was 
the  home  of  music,  as  Italy  is  to-day — what  more  nat- 
ural than  that  the  conquering  Nebuchadnezzar  should 
bring  back  from  the  siege  of  Tyre  and  the  desolations 
wrought  in  Asia  Minor  these  additions  to  the  orchestra 
of  Babylon?  Suppose  that  after  the  conquest  of  Italy 
by  the  first  Napoleon  certain  Italian  operas  and  instru- 
ments had  become  popular  in  Paris — operas  and  instru- 
ments which  are  popular  there  even  now — would  the  pres- 
ence of  that  foreign  music  and  of  those  foreign  instru- 
ments in  Paris  to-day  discredit  the  fact  that  they  had 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  211 

been  brought  there  before  and  were  there  in  the  time  of 
Napoleon  ? 

People  seem  strangely  to  forget  that  there  was  com- 
merce in  those  days  as  there  is  now,  intercourse  between 
the  nations  then  as  there  is  now.  Would  it  not  readily 
occur  to  one  from  reading  these  names  that  such  musical 
instruments  as  the  kitharis,  sambuke,  etc.,  were  known 
in  Babylon  as  derived  from  the  Greeks,  and  that  they 
kept  their  Greek  names  ?  That  would  seem  to  be  the 
natural  inference  ;  that,  to  every  one  except  a  higher 
critic,  would  seem  to  be  the  common  sense. 

A  third  reply  to  the  objection  is  that  the  age  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar was  the  very  age  of  Sappho,  Alcaeus,  and  the 
Greek  lyric  poets  and  musicians  also.  Some  of  these,  we 
know,  had  communication  with  Babylon.  Alcaeus  him- 
self in  one  of  his  poems  celebrates  his  brother  Antimo- 
nidas,  who  was  a  soldier  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  army  and 
fought  under  him  and  for  him  at  Carchemish,  the  Aus- 
terlitz  of  that  earlier  Napoleon.  The  critic  who  can  by 
no  means  bring  himself  to  trust  Daniel  will  no  doubt 
embark  in  bulk  upon  this  stray  and  slender  statement 
of  the  heathen  Alcaeus,  which,  singularly  enough,  however, 
comes  in  to  corroborate  Daniel  and  God. 

5.  Objection  has  been  brought  against  Daniel  that 
part  of  it  is  written  in  Chaldee  and  part  only  in  Hebrew, 
therefore  it  is  not  authentic. 

A  reply  to  this  is  that  the  same  thing  is  true  of  Ezra, 
and  does  not  invalidate  that  book.  Another  reply  is  that 
when  God  writes  a  book  he  writes  for  the  people  and 
in  the  vernacular  of  the  people  addressed.  The  apostles 
were  all  of  them  Hebrews,  yet  they  wrote  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  Greek.  Why?  So  that  Gentiles,  to  whom  it 
was  especially  addressed,  could  read  it.  Daniel  Avrote 
part  of  his  book — that  part  which  was  addressed  to  Jews 
exclusively — in  Hebrew,  but  the  part  addressed  to  Neb- 


212  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

uchadnezzar  and  to  the  people  of  Babylon,  namely,  from 
chapter  ii,  4,  to  chapter  vii,  he  wrote  in  their  language, 
the  Chaldean.  God  nowhere  approves  the  use  of  an  un- 
known tongue  in  his  service.  He  gets  right  down  and 
he  keeps  right  down  to  the  heart  of  the  common  people. 
He  speaks  to  the  Jew  in  Hebrew,  to  the  Babylonian  in 
Chaldee,  and  to  the  Greek  in  Greek.  Nowhere  with  God 
can  you  find  one  tongue  for  "the  mass,"  another  tongue 
for  the  masses.  The  objection  thus  returns  upon  the  ob- 
jector, and,  like  the  stone  on  the  image,  to  grind  him  to 
powder. 

6.  It  is  said  that  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  is  not  so  pure 
as  that  of  Moses  and  the  golden  age  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture, therefore  it  is  not  authentic.  Precisely.  The  Eng- 
lish of  Macaulay  and  Carlyle  is  not  the  English  of  Addi- 
son and  Chaucer  ;  therefore  Macaulay's  history  is  un- 
reliable, and  Carlyle's  essays,  which  have  a  good  many 
Scotticisms  in  them — he  being  a  Scotchman — and  a  good 
many  Germanicisms  in  them — he  having  studied  in  Ger- 
many— are  not  Carlyle's,  but  are  a  compilation. 

Suppose  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  had  not  a  Chaldee  word 
in  it,  would  that  make  more  evident  that  Daniel  lived, 
as  he  says  he  did,  in  Chaldea?  Suppose  the  Hebrew  of 
Daniel  were  precisely  the  Hebrew  of  Moses — no  new  or 
foreign  words,  no  looser  forms  of  construction,  but  only 
the  stereotyped  archaisms  of  one  thousand  years  before 
— what  then  would  the  objector  have  had  it  to  say  but 
that  Moses  wrote  Daniel,  not  Daniel  himself? 

All  the  Hebrew  books  difTer  in  phrase  and  in  style. 
There  is  an  age  change,  which  is  one  of  the  most  irrefuta- 
ble arguments  for  the  very  order  of  the  books,  and  that 
Moc^s  wrote  when  he  did,  and  Daniel  when  he  did. 
Daniel's  style  is  his  own  style,  as  Moses's  was  his.  Aye, 
and  it  would  take  more  of  a  Hebrew  scholar  than  any 
higher  critic  whose  name  has  yet  come  to  light  to  point 


THE   BOOK   OF  DANIEL.  213 

out  where  the  styles  of  Moses  and  Daniel  diverge ;  the 
more  especially  that  now  it  is  claimed  that  Moses  wrote 
after  Daniel,  or  rather  that  the  five  books  of  Moses  are 
later  than  Daniel.  So  that  it  practically  comes  down  to 
this:  that  men  who  are  not  Hebrews,  and  whose  works 
betray  but  a  finger's-end  grasp  of  the  sweep  and  the  soul, 
the  genius— what  the  Germans  call^m/— of  the  language, 
knew  more  about  Hebrew  than  the  Jews  for  three  thou- 
sand years  have  known  their  own  selves ;  that  they  can 
give  points  to  these  Jews— correct  them— open  their 
eyes,  and  reverse  the  judgment  of  sixty  generations,  none 
of  which  had  ever  yet  found  out  that  Daniel  was  not 
good  Hebrew,  and  therefore  was  not  authentic. 

But  once  more :  beaten  back  in  every  weapon,  speechless 
in  the  presence  of  the  book's  self-evidence,  of  its  divine 
indorsement  by  our  Lord,  of  the  consenting  attestations 
of  Ezekiel,  of  the  Septuagint,  of  Josephus,  of  the  New 
Testament,  of  the  bricks  and  monuments  unearthed  in 
situ — the  critic,  foiled  everywhere  else,  flies  back  for 
shelter  behind  the  shield  of  that  great  cloud  of  dust  called 
"  general  grounds."  "  Prophecy,  on  general  grounds,"  he 
affirms,  with  the  look  of  an  owl  who  can  see  in  the  dark — 
"  prophecy  has  only  to  do  with  the  days  and  the  sphere 
of  the  prophet  himself;  no  prophet  can  certainly  predict 
what  lies  in  the  future  beyond  his  horizon.  A  prophet 
is  good  as  a  witness  only  for  what  he  himself  sees,  and 
even  then  his  prophecy  can  only  be  established  in  the 
very  presence  of  the  facts.  Nothing  is  of  any  good  as  a 
headlight,  as  a  prediction  beforehand." 

This  last  and  general  objection  opens,  of  course,  the 
whole  question  of  inspiration — a  point  to  which  what  loves 
to  call  itself  "  higher"  criticism  sooner  or  later  and  al- 
ways gets  back. 

The  reply  is  but  one,  and  but  simply,  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  I  "     Right  through  the  Bible,  from  Genesis  to  Mai- 


214  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

achi  and  from  Matthew  to  the  Apocalypse,  including 
Daniel,  "holy  men,  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  wrote, 
not  in  their  own  name,  nor  yet  in  their  own  words,  but 
as  prophets  and  spokesmen  of  the  Most  High.  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  !  "  prefaced  every  sentence  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, every  sentence  in  Proverbs,  every  sentence  espe- 
cially in  prediction. 

Prophecy  comes,  then,  from  God,  who  calleth  things 
that  are  not  as  though  they  were,  who  seeth  the  end 
from  the  beginning;  and  we  have  not  to  think  of  the 
scope  of  observation,  the  horizon  before  the  prophet's 
eye,  but  of  the  extent  of  God's  foreknowledge,  un- 
bounded, like  himself.  God  said  to  Abraham  when  he 
showed  him  the  stars  of  heaven,  "So  shall  thy  seed 
be."  He  said  that  before  there  was  an  Isaac.  He  spoke 
away  out  of,  beyond,  Abraham's  horizon,  and  declared 
that  a  nation  should  descend  from  Ishmael,  and  he  en- 
abled Isaac  to  foretell  the  future  histories  of  Israel  and 
of  Edom,  dealing  thus  with  nations  as  yet  nonexistent. 

Who  then  shall  limit  and  confine  the  Holy  One  ?  Who 
shall  say  to  God  the  Eternal,  "  Thou  shalt  not  see  nor  say 
what  shall  be,  a  century  beforehand  ?  "  Who  shall  say 
to  the  dread,  the  infinite,  the  mysterious,  and  the 
almighty  Jehovah,  "  The  proportions  of  thy  visions  are 
too  vast,  the  shapes  of  thy  symbols  extravagant  ?  " 

The  authorship  and  the  integrity  of  Daniel  thus  es- 
tablished bring  before  us — 

III.  Its  Structure  and  Practical  Value. 

The  book  is  divided  into  three  parts,  and  exhibits  re- 
markable symmetry.  The  first  part  is  the  first  chapter, 
the  introduction  or  preface,  in  which  the"  personality  of 
Daniel  appears,  and  is  made  to  cover  the  whole.  His 
life-work  begins  with  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
runs  into  that  nf  Cyrus  the  Persian.     The  second  part 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  21$ 

of  the  book,  from  chapter  ii  to  chapter  vii  inclusive,  the 
Chaldean  portion,  again  divides  into  three  parts  : 

1.  The  great  image,  outward  unity  and  splendor  de- 
void of  any  true  life.  It  is  the  course  of  God-given 
empire — a  metallic  and  deteriorating  colossus — gold  run- 
ning down  through  the  inferior  metals,  Babylonia,  Persia, 
Greece,  and  Rome,  into  the  miry  clay. 

2.  The  same  thing  instinct  with  life.  The  obverse  of 
the  die,  the  internal  as  opposed  to  the  external  ;  God's 
view  as  contrasted  with  Nebuchadnezzar's;  four  beasts, 
the  lion,  the  bear,  the  leopard,  and  the  behemoth,  display 
their  characters  in  broader  and  more  reckless  and  de- 
moralizing forms  of  action.  Here,  too,  the  lion  runs  down 
into  a  nondescript  creature,  half  hippopotamus,  half 
serpent. 

3.  The  rock  in  contrast  with  the  metal ;  the  Son  of 
man  in  contrast  with  the  beasts  ;  the  infinite  grandeur 
of  the  mountain  stone — the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  op- 
posed to  the  finite  proportions  of  man's  art  and  power 
of  action  ;  a  stone  cut  out  without  hands,  by  miracle 
displacing  all  and  filling  the  whole  earth. 

Blended  with  these  national  contrasts  are  two  that  are 
personal  :  Nebuchadnezzar's  pride  and  abasement,  Bel- 
shazzar's  pride  and  abasement.  Both  are  brought  down 
in  the  presence  of  God's  witnesses:  Nebuchadnezzar 
before  Shadrach,  and  Belshazzar  before  Daniel. 

The  third  section  of  Daniel  is  an  application  of  all 
this  to  the  affairs  of  God's  people.  It  is  a  review  of  the 
same  history,  giving  us  the  relation  of  the  succession  of 
the  world  kingdoms  to  Israel. 

In  chapters  viii  and  ix  of  the  third  part,  which  are 
parenthetic,  we  are  told  what  shall  befall  the  favored 
nation  during  the  sixty-nine  weeks,  or  four  hundred  and 
eighty-three  years,  down  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
the  cutting  off  of  Messiah  for  the  sins  of  his  people. 


2l6  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

In  chapters  x  and  xi  the  vision  proceeds  further,  is 
vastly  broadened,  and  takes  in,  through  telescopic  slides, 
not  only  the  days  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  but  of  the 
Antichrist  to  come.  This  central  division  of  the  section 
is  of  especial  importance  for  a  right  interpretation  of  the 
book,  for  while  we  might  at  first  be  tempted  to  think 
that  a  detailed  view  of  the  history  down  to  the  time  of 
the  crucifixion  would  be  sufficient,  we  shall,  upon  reflec- 
tion, concede  that  the  crucifixion  is  only  the  beginning, 
in  reality,  of  what  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  Daniel,  intends 
to  describe,  namely,  not  the  commencement  but  the  final 
and  actual  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ ; 
since  the  organic  history  of  salvation  can  only  be  com- 
prehended when  the  details  are  seen  to  be  in  unison 
with  the  scope,  the  scenes  of  the  drama  in  harmony  with 
its  conclusion. 

What  Israel  looked  for,  it  must  be  remembered,  was 
not  only  a  Messiah,  but  the  visible  restoration  of  a  for- 
feited kingdom.  The  first  coming  of  Christ  introduced 
no  material  change  into  the  system  of  the  world's  domin- 
ion. That  change  is  yet  to  come.  A  general  survey, 
therefore,  of  the  whole — of  the  mature  development  and 
final  destiny  of  the  great  world  powers  during  "  the  times 
of  the  Gentiles  " — the  times  in  which  we  are  living  now — 
and  down  to  the  very  end  of  those  times  and  the  future 
rise  and  overthrow  of  Antichrist,  had  to  precede  any 
description  of  the  setting  up  of  the  millennial  kingdom 
and  the  falling  of  the  stone. 

Finally,  to  close  this  third  part  of  the  book,  and  as  an 
epilogue  to  the  whole,  we  have,  in  chapter  xii  a  vision  cor- 
responding to  Revelation  xx — the  first  resurrection  and 
inauguration  of  Messiah's  universal  and  millennial  reign. 

And  in  all  this  and  through  all  this  stands  out,  im- 
pressive, salient,  the  personality  of  Daniel.  It  is  not 
only  a  prophecy,  it  is  a  life  ;  a  life  without  which  the 


THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  217 

prophecy,  in  all  these  ages,  would  have  fallen  on  the 
ages  powerless.  For  nothing  said  or  written  by  any 
man  can  produce  much  effect  unless  there  go  with 
it  the  man  himself.  Saturated  he  must  be  with  his 
message;  shot  through  and  through  with  conviction; 
burning  with  an  energy  which  makes  him — man  lost  in 
the  message,  message  compelling  the  man — a  literal 
holocaust. 

Daniel  in  chapter  x  tells  us  the  whole  of  Daniel.  It  is 
a  man  emptied  of  nature,  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
surcharged  himself,  saturated,  and  charging  and  saturat- 
ing us — oil  into  the  olive,  electricity  into  the  wire,  steam 
into  the  engine,  soul  into  soul,  life  into  life. 

Daniel's  holiness  lies  back  of  Daniel  in  the  communi- 
cations of  God.  What  the  Spirit  speaks  he  speaks 
through  the  Spirit.  Aye,  and  what  the  Spirit  speaks 
he  interprets  to  the  Spirit.  Personal  holiness  is  the 
measure  in  all  ages  of  the  understanding  of  God.  "  If 
any  man  will  do  his  will  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine." 

A  man  must  live  like  Daniel  to  understand  Daniel. 
That  is  what  places  Luther  and  Calvin  and  Owen  to-day 
so  infinitely  in  advance  of  all  modern  expositors.  They 
understood  the  Hebrew  better  than  we  do,  because  it 
was  the  language  of  the  Spirit  of  God  and  because  they 
themselves  were  instinct  with  the  Spirit  of  God  who 
was  speaking. 

"  Sneer  as  men  may,"  says  Meyer,  "  at  the  mysticism 
and  the  pietism  of  the  evangelic  reformers,  we  must 
still  contend  that  without  a  spirituality  like  theirs  all 
comments  on  the  sacred  text  are  essentially  barren  and 
profitless."  Only  life  can  interpret  the  life.  Only  a  Spirit 
common  to  the  book  and  the  man  can  make  the  book  a 
communication  from  God ;  we  know  as  much  as  we  have 
of  the  Spirit,  and  other  than  this,  bright  reason  is  a 
blinkin""  owl. 


2l8  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER. 


BY  PASTOR  B.   B.  TYLER,  D.D., 

New  York  City. 

The  Book  of  Esther  belongs  to  an  intensely  interest- 
ing period  of  time  in  the  history  of  our  race— to  an 
exceedingly  interesting  portion  of  the  earth.  The  time 
of  its  incidents  is  the  fifth  century  before  the  birth  of 
our  Lord  ;  the  place,  the  winter  capital  of  the  empire  of 
Persia.  This  empire  extended,  we  are  told,  from  India 
to  Ethiopia,  and  included  no  less  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty  and  seven  provinces.  The  place  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  in  Bible  history  is  probably  the  space  between 
the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Ezra.  It 
ought  to  be  read  as  belonging  to  the  time  between  the 
dedication  of  the  second  temple  in  Jerusalem  and  the 
return  of  Ezra  to  the  land  of  his  fathers.  The  Book  of 
Esther  must  have  been  written  subsequent  to  the  death 
of  Ahasuerus,  the  Xerxes  of  secular  history,  and  yet 
not  long  after  that  event,  as  its  minuteness  of  details  im- 
plies. The  language,  also,  in  which  the  narrative  was 
originally  presented  is  said  by  competent  critics  to  be 
similar  to  the  language  in  which  the  books  bearing  the 
names  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra  were  written,  and  there  is 
but  little  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  date  of  these  writings. 
Canon  Rawlinson  says  that  the  chronological  notices  in 
the  Book  of  Esther  fit  into  the  history  of  Xerxes  exactly, 
that  the  entire  representation  of  the  court  and  kingdom 
is  suitable  to  the  time  and  character  of  this  monarch. 
Had  the  work  been  composed  by  a  Jewish  romancer, 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER.  219 

at  the  distance  of  a  century  and  a  half  or  two  centuries 
from  the  events,  and  been  based  merely  upon  traditional 
recollections  of  a  great  danger  and  a  great  deliverance,  an 
hypothesis  of  some  rationalistic  critics  of  our  time,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  character  of  Xerxes,  our  Ahas- 
uerus,  should  have  been  so  exactly  set  before  the  reader, 
and  that  representation  of  Persian  manners  should  have 
been  at  once  so  vivid  and  so  accurate.  No  mistakes  are 
made  in  this  book  as  to  dates,  circumstances,  and  forms 
— such  errors  as  condemn  at  once  as  unhistoric  the  books 
of  Judith  and  Tobit.  The  marvelous  accuracy  of  the 
statements  in  the  Book  of  Esther  as  to  dates,  circum- 
stances, and  forms  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  suppo- 
sition that  it  was  written  a  century  and  a  half  or  two 
centuries  after  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  by  some  Jewish 
romancer. 

The  place  in  which  the  events  registered  in  the  Book 
of  Esther  occurred  was  Shushan,  or  Susa,  the  winter 
capital  of  the  great  Persian  empire,  situated  about  two 
hundred  miles  almost  directly  east  from  Babylon,  and 
some  one  hundrecj  and  twenty-five  miles  north  of  the 
Persian  Gulf.  The  site  has  been  explored,  and  the  re- 
mains of  the  magnificent  palace  have  been  found,  the 
palace  in  which  the  noble  Queen  Esther  imperiled  her 
life  to  save  the  lives  of  her  people.  This  discovery  fur- 
nishes indubitable  evidence  that  the  Book  of  Esther  is  a 
record  of  facts,  not  a  chronicle  of  fancies  passing  through 
the  excited  brain  of  some  wild  romancer  probably  cen- 
turies after  King  Ahasuerus  and  Queen  Esther  had 
passed  into  the  unseen.  The  evidence  is  that  the  writer 
not  only  placed  on  record  facts — not  fancies — but  that 
they  were  facts  with  which  he  must  have  been  personally 
familiar.  The  pavement  "  in  the  court  of  the  garden  of 
the  king's  palace"  is  described  in  our  book  as  "of  red, 
and  blue,  and  white,  and  black  marble ;  "  and  this  "  red. 


22C  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  blue,  and  white,  and  black  marble  "  has  been 
brought  to  the  light  of  day  in  our  times,  demonstrating 
the  historic  accuracy,  even  in  the  smallest  and  most  in- 
significant details  of  the  story. 

There  seems  to  be  but  a  slender — a  very  slender — 
foundation  for  the  remark  of  Walter  F.  Adeney  in  the 
volume  of  The  Expositor  s  Bible  which  treats  of  the 
Book  of  Esther,  that  "  the  book  is  not  strictly  historical." 
He  thinks  that  "  the  whole  story  is  so  well  knit  together, 
its  successive  incidents  arrange  themselves  so  perfectly 
and  lead  up  to  the  conclusion  with  such  neat  precision, 
that  it  is  not  easy  to  assign  it  to  the  normal  course  of 
events.  We  do  not  expect,"  he  says,  "  to  meet  with 
this  sort  of  thing  outside  the  realm  of  fairy  tales."  But 
while  Mr.  Adeney  says  this  concerning  the  unhistoric 
character  of  the  book  he  is  constrained  to  admit,  to 
use  his  own  words,  that  "  there  is  another  side  to  the 
question."  He  says  that  "  this  book  is  marvelously  true 
to  Persian  manners.  It  is  redolent  of  the  atmosphere  of 
the  court  at  Susa.  Its  accuracy  in  this  respect  has  been 
traced  down  to  the  most  minute  details.  The  character 
of  Ahasuerus  is  drawn  to  life  ;  point  after  point  in  it  may 
be  matched  in  the  Xerxes  of  Herodotus.  .  .  .  The  book 
bears  evidence  of  having  been  written  in  the  heart  of 
Persia  by  a  man  who  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
scenery  he  described.  There  seems  to  be  some  reason 
for  believing  in  the  substantial  accuracy  of  a  narrative 
that  is  so  true  to  life  in  these  respects." 

The  Book  of  Esther  is  read  through  by  the  Jews  in 
their  places  of  public  worship  during  the  annual  celebra- 
tion of  the  feast  of  Purim,  when  it  was,  and  is  still  in 
some  synagogues,  the  custom,  at  the  mention  of  the 
name  of  Haman  the  Agagite,  to  hiss  and  stamp  and 
elevate  the  fist,  and  cry,  "  Let  his  name  be  blotted  out ; 
may  the  name  of  the  wicked  rot."     It  is  also  said  that 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER.  221 

the  names  of  Hainan's  ten  sons  are  read  in  one  breath, 
to  signify  that  they  all  expired  at  the  same  instant  of 
time.  Even  in  writing  the  names  of  these  sons  inverses 
7,  8,  and  g,  in  chapter  ix,  the  scribes  have  contrived  to 
express  their  abhorrence  of  the  race  of  Haman  ;  for 
these  names,  the  names  of  Haman's  sons,  are  written  in 
three  perpendicular  columns  of  three,  three,  and  four,  as 
if  the  offspring  of  this  very  wicked  man  were  hanging 
upon  three  parallel  cords,  three  on  each  of  two  cords, 
and  four  on  the  third,  one  above  another,  to  represent 
the  manner  in  which  they  were  put  to  death. 

How  are  we  to  account  for  the  feast  of  Purim  if  the 
Book  of  Esther  is  not  historical?  How  are  we  to  ex- 
plain the  intense  feeling  and  its  violent  expression  at 
the  pronunciation  of  the  name  of  Haman  in  the  reading 
of  the  book  at  the  feast  of  Purim  if  such  a  man  never 
lived,  or,  if  living,  he  never  did  the  things  attributed  to 
him  in  this  book?  Why  did  the  learned  men  among  the 
Jews  invent  the  method  of  writing  the  names  of  Ha- 
man's ten  sons  in  the  manner  described,  if  there  never 
was  such  a  man  as  Haman,  or,  being  such  a  person,  if  he 
never  had  ten  sons  ? 

Institutions  such  as  the  feast  of  Purim,  and  customs 
such  as  pertain  to  the  annual  celebration  of  this  festival, 
have  an  evidential  value  which  is  considerable.  The 
Church  of  God  and  its  ordinances — the  Lord's  baptism, 
the  Lord's  supper,  and  the  Lord's  day — are  institutions 
testifying  to  the  great  facts  in  the  remedial  system  in- 
troduced by  the  Son  of  God,  to  wit,  his  death  for  our 
sins,  according  to  predictions  contained  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  his  burial  in  the  tomb  of  the  rich  man,  as  had 
been  foretold,  and  his  triumphant  resurrection,  in  which 
glorious  event  God  declared  that  the  crucified  Nazarene 
was  indeed  his  Son.  These  great  facts  are  the  pillar 
facts  of  Christianity  ;  and  that  they  are  facts  is  witnessed 
15 


222  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

by  the  Church  and  her  divinely  appointed  ordinances, 
the  Lord's  day,  the  Lord's  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per. These  institutions  stand  as  mute  but  eloquent 
witnesses  to  these  stupendous  facts.  Deny  these  facts, 
and  how  can  the  presence  of  these  institutions  be  ac- 
counted for  ? 

In  our  national  history,  also,  we  have  such  days  as  the 
Fourth  of  July  and  Memorial  Day.  If  there  was  no  such 
writing  drawn  up  and  signed  by  certain  of  our  patriot 
fathers  July  4,  1776,  as  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
how  came  it  to  pass  that  this  day  was  set  apart  for  the 
annual  commemoration  of  such  an  event  ?  How  was  this 
fraud  first  perpetrated  ?  By  whom?  For  what  reason? 
What  character  of  blindness  afflicted  the  American 
people,  that  they  permitted  themselves  to  be  imposed  on 
in  this  way? 

If  there  was  no  war  of  the  rebellion  in  1861-65 
how  came  it  to  pass  that  the  30th  day  of  May  in  each 
year  has  been  set  apart  as  sacred  to  the  memory  of  the 
men  who  are  popularly  supposed  to  have  died  in  that 
struggle  that  this  nation  might  live? 

So  this  feast  of  Purim,  observed  by  the  Jews  from  time 
immemorial,  testifies  to  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Book 
of  Esther. 

The  writer  of  the  article  in  the  Schaff-Herzog  Ency- 
clopcBdia  on  the  Book  of  Esther  says  that  "an  irrefutable 
argument  for  the  truth  of  the  narrative  is  the  feast  of 
Purim,  which  commemorates  the  facts,  and  is  inexplicable 
on  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  they  occurred." 

In  an  article  on  the  Book  of  Esther  in  the  Encyclo- 
pedia Britaniiica  by  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Cheyne,  M.A., 
Hebrew  lecturer,  Baliol  College,  Oxford,  after  mention- 
ing a  number  of  arguments  against  the  historic  character 
of  the  writing,  with  evident  sympathy,  he  closes  as  fol- 
lows: "And    we  may  sum    up   by  the   remark  that  if 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER.  223 

direct  historic  evidence  is  deficient  for  the  traditional 
view  of  the  Book  of  Esther  it  is  equally  deficient  for  the 
rival  critical  theory.  Probability  is  our  only  guide  ;  yet 
even  if  the  book  contains  a  larger  or  smaller  romantic 
elernent  it  is  of  real  historical  value  as  a  record  of  the 
Jewish  spirit  in  a  little-known  age,  and  is  edifying  even 
to  Christians  from  its  powerful  though  indirect  inculca- 
tion of  the  lesson  of  divine  providence." 

The  easiest,  the  most  natural,  the  most  rational  treat- 
ment of  the  Book  of  Esther  is  to  receive  it  as  a  faithful 
record  of  facts  as  they  transpired  in  the  empire  of  Per- 
sia under  the  reign  of  Xerxes  in  connection  with  God's 
elect  people. 

But  if  it  should  turn  out  to  be  true  that  the  book  is 
fictitious,  with  a  foundation  of  fact,  an  event  not  at  all 
likely  to  occur,  this  would  not  be  a  sufficient  reason  for 
removing  it  from  its  place  in  the  sacred  canon.  Some 
one  has  said  that  "  in  these  days  of  the  theological  novel 
we  are  scarcely  in  a  position  to  object  to  what  may  be 
thought  to  partake  of  the  character  of  a  romance,  even 
if  it  is  found  in  the  Bible.  No  one  asks  whether  our 
Lord's  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  was  a  true  story  of 
some  Galilean  family.  The  Pilgrims  Progress  has  its 
mission,  though  it  is  not  verified  by  any  authentic  annals 
of  Elstow."  The  learned  Canon  Rawlinson,  however, 
says,  in  the  Speaker  s  Commentary,  that  "  Esther  is  a 
more  purely  historical  book  than  any  other  in  Scripture." 

Luther  entertained  doubts  about  the  right  of  the 
Book  of  Esther  to  a  place  in  the  canon  ;  but  among 
Protestant  evangelical  writers  he  is  said  to  be  almost  the 
only  one  who  has  done  so. 

The  pious  descendants  of  Abraham  have  always  been 
exceedingly  scrupulous  about  the  admission  of  any  doc- 
ument into  their  canon,  but  with  them,  in  all  ages  and 
places,    the  Book  of    Esther  has   occupied    an  exalted 


224  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

station  among  the  writings  which  they  esteemed  sacred. 
Their  treatment  of  this  book  adds  confirmation  to  its 
canonicity.  It  is  placed  by  them  next  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  is  emphatically  called  Megillah ;  that  is  to 
say,  "  the  roll." 

It  is  said  in  the  opening  sentence  of  this  address  that 
the  Book  of  Esther  belongs  to  an  interesting  period  in 
the  history  of  our  race,  to  an  intensely  interesting  portion 
of  the  earth. 

Treating  the  Book  of  Esther  as  history,  let  us  in  imag- 
ination visit  the  winter  capital  of  Persia  and  note  a  few 
contemporaneous  events. 

Xerxes  occupied  the  throne  of  Persia  about  twenty- 
one  years,  or  from  B.  C.  486  to  B.  C.  465.  It  was  in  the 
year  490  that  Darius  invaded  Greece  and  suffered  defeat 
at  Marathon,  on  the  28th  day  of  September  in  that  year 
— one  of  the  few  decisive  battles  of  the  world — a  battle 
in  which,  in  large  measure,  was  decided  the  civilization  of 
Europe,  and  consequently  America.  About  ten  years 
later  Xerxes  attempted  to  do  what  Darius  was  unable  to 
accomplish — he  attempted  the  subjugation  of  Greece.  He 
invaded  Greece  with  a  host  said  to  have  numbered  more 
than  5,200,000  men,  besides  women  and  other  attend- 
ants. A  section  of  this  horde  of  mercenaries  was  met  at 
the  Pass  of  Thermopylae  by  Leonidas  and  his  three  hun- 
dred Spartan  heroes,  August  7,  480  B.  C.  At  the  hands 
of  this  invincible  and  immortal  band,  standing  for  their 
homes,  their  wives,  their  children,  and  their  native  land, 
twenty  thousand  Persians  came  to  their  death.  Two 
months  later  the  Persians  suffered  a  terrible  defeat  at  the 
hands  of  the  Greeks  under  Themistocles  in  the  great 
naval  battle  of  Salamis.  This  defeat  was  nothing  less 
than  disastrous,  followed  closely  by  other  similar  events, 
so  that  Xerxes  was  compelled  to  abandon  his  attempt 
to  conquer  Greece  and  return  to  his  home  in  the  East 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER.  225 

with  barely  five  thousand  soldiers  of  the  almost  count- 
less multitude  which  in  the  beginning  of  the  expedition 
followed  his  banner.  These  were  some  of  the  events 
which  belong  to  Greece  at  this  period,  events  in 
which  the  empire  of  Persia  had  a  keen  interest.  Herod- 
otus, the  future  historian,  the  father  of  history,  to 
whom  we  are  so  largely  indebted  for  information  con- 
cerning this  time  and  these  oriental  lands,  was  but  a  boy 
in  the  midst  of  these  stirring  scenes.  Looking  in  the 
direction  of  Rome,  there  is  a  contest  being  waged  be- 
tween the  patricians  and  plebeians,  which  has  through 
centuries  affected  the  history  of  mankind. 

If  our  attention  is  directed  to  the  land  of  Palestine  we 
see  the  Jews  returning  from  their  protracted  captivity  in 
Babylon,  to  which  they  had  been  condemned  because  of 
their  continued  disregard  of  God  and  his  word — returning 
to  rebuild  their  temple  and  city.  But  some  remained  in 
the  land  of  their  captivity,  a  sufficient  number  to  fill  the 
place  to  which  they  are  assigned,  and  to  do  the  things 
attributed  to  them  in  our  history. 

Rawlinson  characterizes  Xerxes  as  "  proud,  self-willed, 
amorous,  careless  of  contravening  Persian  customs,  reck- 
less of  human  life,  impetuous,  facile,  changeable."  This 
man,  failing  to  conquer  Greece,  returns  to  his  own  domin- 
ions, his  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  provinces  con- 
stituting the  Persian  empire,  to  seek  consolation  and 
surcease  from  the  cares  of  a  disastrous  campaign  in  the 
pleasures  of  the  harem. 

At  about  this  time,  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign,  oc- 
curs the  elevation  of  Esther  to  the  position  of  queen,  an 
account  of  which  we  have  in  the  first  and  second  chapters 
of  the  book  which  bears  her  name. 

Esther  was  young,  beautiful,  and  brave.  She  had  a 
strength  of  character  which  enabled  her  to  preserve  her 
faith  in  God  and  the   purity  of  her  life  even  amid  the 


226  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

spiritual  bankruptcy  and  moral  degradation  of  an  orien- 
tal court.  She  was  an  orphan.  Her  great-grandfather 
was  carried  a  captive  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon  proba- 
bl)^  a  century  and  a  half  previous  to  this  time.  Morde- 
cai,  her  cousin,  a  man  of  remarkable  character,  was  her 
foster  father.  How  Esther  came  to  occupy  the  position 
of  opportunity  and  responsibility  to  which  she  is  assigned 
in  the  book  which  bears  her  name  is  an  unusually  inter- 
esting story  as  throwing  light  on  how 

"  God  moves  in  a  mysterious  way. 
His  wonders  to  perform." 

According  to  Herodotus  the  Persians  were  addicted 
to  drunkenness,  and  the  incident  described  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Esther  is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  Greek 
historian's  account  of  the  people  over  whom  Xerxes 
ruled.  The  emperor  himself  was  an  intemperate  man, 
intemperate  in  almost  every  conceivable  sense  of  the 
word. 

In  a  drunken  revel  the  emperor  required  the  beautiful 
Queen  Vashti  to  exhibit  her  personal  charms  to  his 
drunken  courtiers.  This  she  refused  to  do.  For  this 
she  was  put  away.  No  longer  was  she  permitted  to  ap- 
pear as  the  wife  of  the  emperor. 

Then  his  lords,  heated  with  wine,  persuaded  the  king 
to  make  a  decree  that  every  man  should  bear  rule  in  his 
own  house.  This  conduct  is  so  ridiculous  that  I  must 
read  from  the  book  itself  the  text,  as  follows : 

"  But  the  queen  Vashti  refused  to  come  at  the  king's 
commandment  by  the  chamberlains:  therefore  was  the 
king  very  wroth,  and  his  anger  burned  in  him.  Then  the 
king  said  to  the  wise  men,  .  .  ,  What  shall  we  do  unto 
the  queen  Vashti  according  to  law,  because  she  hath  not 
done  the  bidding  of  the  king  Ahasuerus  by  the  chamber- 
lains? And  Memucan  answered  before  the  king  and  the 
princes,  Vashti  the  queen  hath  not  done  wrong  to  the 


THE   BOOK    OF   ESTHER.  22/ 

king  only,  but  also  to  all  the  princes,  and  to  all  the 
peoples  that  are  in  all  the  provinces  of  the  king  Ahasue- 
rus.  For  this  deed  of  the  queen  shall  come  abroad  unto 
all  women,  to  make  their  husbands  contemptible  in  their 
eyes,  when  it  shall  be  reported.  The  king  Ahasuerus 
commanded  Vashti  the  queen  to  be  brought  in  before 
him,  but  she  came  not.  And  this  day  shall  the  princesses 
of  Persia  and  Media  which  have  heard  of  the  deed  of 
the  queen  say  the  like  unto  all  the  king's  princes.  So 
shall  there  arise  much  contempt  and  wrath.  If  it  please 
the  king,  let  there  go  forth  a  royal  commandment  from 
him,  and  let  it  be  written  among  the  laws  of  the  Persians 
and  the  Medes,  that  it  be  not  altered,  that  Vashti  come 
no  more  before  king  Ahasuerus  ;  and  let  the  king  give 
her  royal  estate  unto  another  that  is  better  than  she. 
And  when  the  king's  decree  which  he  shall  make  shall 
be  published  throughout  all  his  kingdom,  (for  it  is  great,) 
all  the  wives  shall  give  to  their  husbands  honor,  both  to 
great  and  small.  And  the  saying  pleased  the  king  and 
the  princes ;  and  the  king  did  according  to  the  word  of 
Memucan  :  for  he  sent  letters  into  all  the  king's  provinces, 
into  every  province  according  to  the  writing  thereof,  and 
to  every  people  after  their  language,  that  every  man 
should  bear  rule  in  his  own  house,  and  should  publish  it 
according  to  the  language  of  his  people"  (Esth.  i,  12,  13 
15-22). 

I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that  our  good  brother,  Dr. 
William  M.  Taylor,  says  that  *'  this  is  undoubtedly  one  of 
the  most  amusing  things  in  all  history.  One  can  hardly 
keep  from  laughing  outright  as  he  reads  the  words. 
Truly  this  was  the  Xerxes  who  imagined  that  he  could 
bind  the  Hellespont  by  casting  in  it  a  few  iron  fetters." 

In  the  story  of  the  Book  of  Esther  the  fall  of  Vashti  is 
introduced  merely  to  make  way  for  the  beautiful  Hebrew 
orphan  girl,  the  ward  of  Mordecai  the  Jew,  who  is  hence- 


228  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

forth  to  be  known  through  the  ages  as  the  heroic  Queen 
Esther. 

The  story  of  the  elevation  of  this  obscure  girl  to  a 
place  of  almost  boundless  opportunity  and  responsibility 
is  so  well  known  to  all  here  present  that  it  will  not  in  this 
place  be  recited. 

There  are  three  principal  objections  to  the  Book  of 
Esther  which  ought  to  be  noticed. 

I.  The  name  of  God  is  not  in  the  book. 

In  A  Dictionary  of  Religious  Knowledge,  edited  by  Ly- 
man Abbott,  it  is  said  that  "  the  omission  of  the  name  of 
God  is  not  a  defect  in  a  book  which  contains  a  history 
full  of  his  actual  interpositions  and  remarkable  for  its 
testimony  to  the  value  and  power  of  a  living  faith  in  him  ; 
to  which  the  Jewsadd  that  the  name  was  purposely  omitted 
because  the  book  was  intended  to  be  read  by  the  heathen, 
and,  for  the  purpose  of  producing  a  greater  effect  upon 
them,  was  largely  transcribed,  under  divine  inspiration, 
from  the  chronicles  of  the  Medes  and  Persians ;  in  short, 
that  the  book  really  testifies  more  effectually  to  the 
greatness  and  goodness  of  God  by  omitting  any  mention 
of  his  name  than  by  containing  it." 

The  Rev.  J.  W.  Haley  thinks  that  *' a  book  of  the 
Bible  without  the  divine  name  may  yet  have  a  divine 
impress,  even  as  the  diamond,  the  most  resplendent 
thing  in  the  mineral  kingdom,  has  that  impress,  though 
bearing  no  inscription  telling  its  author.  .  .  .  Consider 
the  rose  that  blossoms  so  beautifully  at  your  feet.  You 
cannot  spell  out  in  letters  the  name  of  God  on  it ;  but  is 
not  the  witness  there?  Put  it  under  the  microscope ; 
is  not  its  perfection  of  parts  divine?  Are  not  the  tinting 
and  scalloping  divine  ?  Is  not  the  fragrance  beyond 
what  human  skill  can  produce  ?  Is  not  the  life  principle 
in  it  superhuman  ?  It  would  be  superfluous  to  write  upon 
the  rose,  '  God  made  me.'  .  .  . 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER.  229 

"  In  the  whole  annals  of  mankind  you  can  find  no  pas- 
sage of  history,  profane  or  sacred,  that  in  its  spirit  and 
atmosphere  has  more  of  God  in  it  than  the  Book  of 
Esther.  There  is  no  need  that  the  Almighty  One  should 
proclaim  his  name,  to  be  seen  and  felt  in  all  the  fullness 
of  his  glory  and  power.  .  .  . 

"  So  when,  in  this  Book  of  Esther,  we  see  a  plot  cun- 
ningly devised,  having  on  its  side  all  the  power  and  in- 
fluence of  the  greatest  worldly  empire  then  existing ; 
when  we  see  the  ax  lifted  over  the  necks  of  this  people, 
ready  to  fall  and  exterminate  them,  yet  a  hand  stretched 
out,  mighty  enough  and  pitying  enough  to  deliver  them 
and  turn  what  was  intended  for  their  overthrow  into  the 
means  of  their  glory,  is  there  any  need  of  saying,  '  God 
did  this?'  " 

Will  you  listen  to  a  quotation  from  the  Rev.  Nehe- 
miah  Boynton  on  this  point? 

"  The  latest  message  to  the  laymen  of  the  world  by 
one  of  their  own  number  declares :  *  It  does  not  matter 
how  you  label  a  bottle,  but  if  you  open  the  bottle 
labeled  and  find  it  is  oil  of  vitriol,  will  the  label  help 
you  ?  We  have  been  discussing  too  much  the  difference 
of  labels.'  That  is  to  say,  representation  has  successfully 
masqueraded  as  reality ;  what  is  said  wears  the  crown 
belonging  to  what  is  meant.  Now,  wherever  literalism 
thus  asserts  itself,  truth  blushes  ;  where  the  writing  of  the 
label  is  supreme  the  analysis  of  the  chemist  is  at  a  dis- 
count. 

"  The  largest  objection  to  the  place  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  in  the  canon  of  sacred  Scripture  has  been  urged 
by  the  admirers  of  labels.  They  have  read  with  single- 
ness of  purpos_e  this  narrative  of  king  and  queen,  of  edict 
announced  and  annulled,  of  ambition  outreaching  and 
overreaching,  of  jealousy  recoiling  with  terrific  bound 
upon  itself,  of  worth  at  last  acknowledged,  of  a  nation 


230  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

condemned  by  personal  spite  and  delivered  by  personal 
heroism  and  faith  ;  but  since  in  this  thrilling  narrative 
the  name  of  God  does  not  once  occur  ;  since  worship,  so 
far  from  being  em]>hasized,  is  only  once  suggested,  and 
that  in  connection  with  fasting,  these  label  writers  have 
gravely  questioned  the  propriety  of  cataloguing  the  Book 
of  Esther  among  the  sacred  writings,  and  of  regarding  it 
as  containing  for  men  an  inspired  word  from  the  lip  of 
God. 

"  But  would  the  book  be  improved  if  the  divine  name 
were  inserted?  Would  such  an  insertion  inspire  it?  Is 
the  indefinite  uninspired  ?  Is  not  suggestion  sometimes 
stronger  than  declaration  ?  Does  not  light-winged  im- 
agination sometimes  soar  to  heights  which  are  inacces- 
sible to  heavy-pinioned  intelligence  ?  Is  the  Gulf  Stream, 
bearing  the  great  greyhounds  of  the  sea  on  its  swift 
bosom,  sending  its  warm  zephyrs  to  mollify  the  climate 
as  it  sweeps  majestically  shoreward,  any  the  less  a 
mighty  river  in  the  sea  because  there  are  not  upon  its 
borders  signboards  declaring,  'This  is  the  Gulf  Stream  ?  ' 
Is  the  handiwork  of  God  any  the  less  divine  because  the 
frost  does  not  leave  his  autograph  on  the  windowpane, 
the  sun  on  the  petal  of  the  flower,  the  glacier  on  the  face 
of  the  mountain  ?  More  precious  than  the  mere  name 
is  the  suggestion,  the  manifestation  ;  the  contents,  not 
the  label,  is  the  standard  of  value. 

"  So  with  relation  to  this  rich,  rare  Book  of  Esther,  with 
its  lessons  of  Providence  abounding,  of  privilege  wres- 
tling with  duty,  of  a  noble  wife's  management  of  an  un- 
ruly husband,  of  a  nation  held  in  the  divine  clasp  of  the 
beauty  and  bravery  of  an  orphan  queen,  of  the  swift 
judgment  which  crowds  the  heels  of  jealous  iniquity,  of 
the  triumph  of  righteousness,  we  do  not  need  God's 
name  to  assure  us  that  this  is  God's  word  ;  the  truth  is 
its  own  witness ;  the  meaning  of  the  book  is  unmistak- 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER,  23 1 

able ;  its  spirit  is  both  infolded  in  its  speech  and  un- 
folded in  its  language.  The  man  who  iias  never  heard 
the  ring  of  the  voice  of  God  may  not  recognize  it ;  to 
him  the  book  may  be  a  dispatch  in  cipher ;  but  to  the 
discerning,  the  believing,  the  open-eyed,  it  is  indeed  one 
of  the  oracles  of  God."  * 

2.  The  decree  of  blood. 

In  the  collision  between  the  Persians  and  the  Jews 
seventy-five  thousand  of  the  former  lost  their  lives.  How 
many  Jews  died  we  do  not  know ;  but  this  loss  of  life 
was  a  result  of  the  vacillation  of  Xerxes,  a  result  of  his 
contradictory  decrees. 

Are  there  no  parallels  to  this  on  the  pages  of  secular 
history?  and  do  the  men  who  cannot  believe  the  Bible 
because  of  these  revolting  facts  discard  all  history  be- 
cause its  chronicles  contain  facts  quite  as  horrible?  The 
main  fact  that  Ahasuerus,  at  Haman's  request,  resolved 
to  issue  an  edict  which  ordered  the  destruction  of  all  the 
Jews  in  the  entire  Persian  empire  is  not  without  anal- 
ogy. Mithridates,  King  of  Pontus,  in  his  war  against 
Rome  issued  secret  orders  to  all  the  satraps  and  chief  local 
authorities  of  his  kingdom  to  murder  on  a  certain  day  all 
Romans,  without  distinction  of  sex  or  age,  whereby  eighty 
thousand,  or,  as  some  estimate,  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand,  persons  lost  their  lives.  Mehmed,  a  pasha  of 
Zaid,  in  the  sixteenth  century  surprised  the  entire  nation 
of  the  Druses,  and  caused  all  that  were  met  with  to  be 
killed.  A  similar  thing  occurred  also  in  Europe.  At  the 
time  of  the  Sicilian  vespers  there  fell  eight  thousand 
Frenchmen  in  Catania  alone.  Ferdinand  the  Catholic 
drove  out  of  Spain  over  three  hundred  thousand  Jews, 
and  Louis  XIV  drove  out  of  France  several  hundred 
thousand  Protestants,  after  causing  thousands  more  to  be 

*  Rev.  Neliemiah  Boynton,  in  Sc-n//o//s  on  the  International  Sunday  School 
Lessons  for  1S93,  by  the  Monday  Clul>,  pp.  gi-93. 


232  ANTI-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

murdered.  The  Parisian  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's 
night  is  another  specially  analogous  case.  Keil  very 
justly  makes  prominent  the  point  in  reference  to  these 
facts  that  Greek  and  Roman  authors  are  unanimous 
in  their  portrait  of  Xerxes,  and  paint  him  as  a  very  riot- 
ous, licentious  monarch,  and  an  extremely  cruel  tyrant. 
Xerxes  was  the  despot  who,  after  the  wealthy  Lydian, 
Pythius,  had  most  richly  entertained  the  Persian  army 
in  its  march  against  Greece,  and  offered  an  immense 
sum  of  money  as  a  contribution  to  the  cost  of  the 
war,  on  his  making  a  petition  to  have  the  oldest  of  his 
five  sons  then  in  the  army  given  to  him  as  a  solace  for 
his  old  age,  became  so  enraged  that  he  caused  the  son 
asked  for  to  be  cut  in  pieces,  and  laid  the  pieces  on  both 
sides  of  the  way  and  ordered  his  army  to  march  through 
between  them  ;  the  tyrant  who  caused  the  heads  of  those 
to  be  cut  off  who  built  the  pontoon  bridge  over  the  Hel- 
lespont because  a  storm  had  destroyed  the  bridge,  and 
who  ordered  the  sea  to  be  lashed  with  whips  and  bound 
with  chains  sunk  under  the  waves  ;  the  debauchee  who, 
after  his  return  from  Greece,  sought  to  drown  the  vexa- 
tion of  his  shameful  defeat  by  means  of  sensuality  and 
revelry.  Such  a  frantic  tyrant  as  he  was  was  capable 
of  all  that  is  related  in  the  Book  of  Esther  of  Ahasuerus. 
Others,  again,  find  it  difficult  to  receive  as  true  what 
is  said  about  Esther  in  connection  with  the  ten  sons  of 
Haman.  When  the  circumstances  are  considered  it  ought 
not  to  appear  incredible  that  she  desired  the  execution 
of  these  men.  To  me  it  seems  a  rather  natural  thing  on 
her  part  to  desire  to  have  them  put  out  of  the  way.  Do 
not  forget  that  this  is  not  the  history  of  a  Christian 
queen,  not  even,  we  may  well  believe,  a  well-educated, 
religiously  educated  Hebrew  woman,  but  one  born  and 
bred  in  the  midst  of  dense  heathen  darkness,  possess- 
ing at  best  probably  only  a  traditional  faith  in  the  God 


THE   BOOK   OF   ESTHER.  233 

of  her  fathers.     "  Live  with  wolves  and  you  will  begin 
to  howl,"  says  a  Spanish  proverb. 

3.  How  can  we  account  for  the  fact  that  in  the  Book 
of  Esther  there  is  no  mention  of  sacrifices;  of  prayer; 
of  worship,  other  than  fasting;  of  the  Holy  Land;  of 
Jerusalem  ;  or  of  the  temple  ? 

This  omission,  or  these  omissions,  can  be  satisfactorily 
explained  by  considering  the  purpose  of  the  writer. 
What  is  the  lesson  in  the  Book  of  Esther?  A  number 
of  lessons  may  be  gleaned  legitimately  from  this  small 
portion  of  the  word,  but  the  question  is.  What  was  in 
the  mind  of  the  writer  as  tJic  lesson,  above  all  others,  to 
be  learned  ? 

Here  is  a  little  book  entitled  The  Gospel  in  the  Book 
of  Esther.  For  aught  I  know  every  element  of  die  G03 
pel  of  Christ  may  be  illustrated  by  facts  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  Esther,  but  none  will  claim  that  in  this  bit  of 
the  inspired  volume  are  the  facts,  the  truths,  the  com- 
mands, principles,  promises,  and  warnings  of  the  Gospel 
of  the  Son  of  God. 

"The  doctrine  of  substitution,"  says  our  dear  brother. 
Dr.  Munhall,  "  is  beautifully  suggested  by  Esther's  will- 
ingness to  die  for  the  people  a  voluntary  and  vicarious 
sacrifice.  Esther's  communication  with  the  king  sug- 
gests the  believer's  fellowship  with  the  King  of  Glory 
(John  xiv,  23,  and  i  John  i,  7).  Esther's  marriage  sug- 
gests the  relations  of  Christ  and  his  bride — the  Church 
(2  Cor.  xi,  2;  Eph.  v,  22-27;  Matt,  xxv,  1-12).  The 
answers  she  received  to  her  supplications  are  quite  in 
line  with  the  doctrine  of  acceptable  prayer.  The  un- 
limited and  innumerable  promises  of  God  are  typified  in 
Esth.  vili,  8.  The  final  victory  over  all  her  foes  is 
what  is  at  last  to  be  gloriously  true  of  the  bride  of  Jesus 
Christ  (Rev.  xxi,  7;  iii,  21)."* 

*  The  Highest  Critics  versus  the  Higher  Critics,  p.  172. 


234  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

To  this  I  have  no  objection.  The  word  suggested  in 
this  quotation  is  appropriate  and  necessary.  The  writer 
of  the  Book  of  Esther  did  not  purpose  to  teach  these 
truths  when  he  wrote  the  book.  What,  then,  did  he 
purpose?  This  is  the  question.  Professor  F.  W.  Schultz, 
in  Lange,  thinks  that  "it  is  manifestly  the  intention  of 
the  author  to  exhibit  the  reason  for  the  feast  of  Purim, 
that  is,  to  narrate  the  remarkable  events  to  which  that 
feast  had  reference.  He  is  so  engrossed  with  this  festi- 
val of  Purim  that  he  declares  to  us  in  the  ninth  chapter 
how  it  came  that  not  only  the  fourteenth  but  even  the 
fifteenth  of  Adar  was  celebrated  as  a  festival ;  and  in 
verses  24  and  following  he  again  briefly  condenses  the 
chief  facts  of  the  history  in  order  to  give  them  in  a  definite 
and  comprehensive  manner  as  the  ground  of  the  feast  ; 
and  finally  he  makes  the  name  Purim  conspicuous  as 
having  special  reference  to  these  events."  '*  It  is  the 
manifest  design,"  says  Professor  Schultz,  "  of  the  book  to 
promote  a  revival  of  Jewish  faith." 

I  have  noted  in  the  reading  of  some  author  the  words 
following :  "  The  Book  of  Esther  furnishes  not  only  evi- 
dence that  there  is  a  just  government  in  the  world,  but 
that  he  who  digs  a  pit  for  another  will  fall  into  it  him- 
self."   The  lesson  taught  is  a  lesson  of  divine  providence. 

Good  old  Matthew  Henry  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  God's  providence  was  over  the  Jews  who  remained 
in  Babylon.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  furnish  evidence  of 
this  providence  in  the  case  of  the  thousands  who  returned 
to  the  land  of  their  fathers.  With  this  as  his  purpose 
there  was  no  reason  why  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Esther 
should  speak  of  sacrifices,  of  prayer,  of  worship,  of  the 
Holy  Land,  of  Jerusalem,  or  of  the  temple. 

There  is  no  time  left  in  which  to  speak  of  the  author- 
ship of  this  book. 

In  the  ninth  chapter  and  at  the  twentieth  verse  we  are 


THE   ROOK   OF   ESTHER.  235 

told  that  "  Mordecai  wrote  these  things,  and  sent  letters 
unto  all  the  Jews  that  were  in  all  the  provinces  of  the  king 
Ahasuerus,  both  nigh  and  far,  to  establish  this  among 
them,  that  they  should  keep  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month  Adar,  and  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  same,  yearly, 
as  the  days  wherein  the  Jews  rested  from  their  enemies, 
and  the  month  which  was  turned  unto  them  from  sorrow 
to  joy,  and  from  mourning  into  a  good  day :  that  they 
should  make  them  days  of  feasting  and  joy,  and  of  send- 
ing portions  one  to  another,  and  gifts  to  the  poor " 
(Esth.  ix,  20-22). 

That  Mordecai  wrote  this  much  we  do  not  doubt. 
There  is  no  good  reason  why  he  should  not  have  written 
the  entire  story  of  the  deliverance  of  God's  elect  people 
in  Persia  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  as  given  in  the  Book 
of  Esther. 

While  the  lesson  is,  as  I  have  said,  one  of  divine 
providence,  this  portion  of  the  Bible  is  fruitful  in  homi- 
letical  suggestions.  The  opportunity  for  interesting  and 
profitable  character  studies  is  unusually  fine.  Ahasuerus, 
the  foolish  tyrant ;  Vashti,  the  modest  woman  ;  Haman, 
the  selfish  man  ;  Esther,  the  diplomatic  and  self-sacrific- 
ing woman ;  Mordecai,  the  faithful  and  contented  offi- 
cer;  Memucan,  the  man  who  gives  advice,  are  some  of 
the  character  studies  for  pulpit  use. 

There  is  a  rich  mine  in  the  Book  of  Esther  to  reward 
any  one  who  has  industry  and  patience  and  ability  to 
work  it.  May  the  blessing  of  God  be  on  us  in  our  inves- 
tigations of  the  living  word  ! 


236  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


MESSIANIC  PROPHECIES. 


BY   PROFESSOR    WILLIAM    G.    MOOREHEAD,    D.D., 
United  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary^  Xenia,  O. 

This  is  a  large  subject  ,  too  large  to  be  treated  satis- 
factorily in  the  time  allotted  to  the  discourses  of  the 
Conference.  Only  some  features  of  it  will  engage  our 
attention. 

I.  Our  first  duty  is  to  determine  as  exactly  as  possible 
the  meaning  of  the  terms  prophet  and  prophecy.  We 
are  not  compelled  to  resort  to  lexicons  and  commenta- 
ries to  ascertain  their  significance. 

Happily,  the  Bible  itself  furnishes  us  an  authoritative 
definition  of  the  office  and  function  of  the  prophet.  In 
Exod.  vii,  I,  we  are  told,  "  The  Lord  said  unto  Moses, 
See,  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh  ;  and  Aaron 
thy  brother  shall  be  thy  prophet."  No  statement  could 
be  clearer  than  this.  By  divine  appointment  Moses  was 
to  be  in  the  place  of  God  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  was  to 
act  as  the  prophet  of  Moses,  receiving  from  him  the  mes- 
sage and  delivering  it  to  the  king.  This  is  further  illus- 
trated in  Exod.  iv,  15,  16,  where  Moses  was  directed  to 
"speak"  to  Aaron  "  and  put  words  into  his  mouth,"  the 
Lord  promising  at  the  same  time  to  be  with  the  mouths 
of  both  his  servants,  and  to  teach  them  what  they  should 
do.  Furthermore,  Aaron  was  to  be  Moses's  spokesman 
unto  the  people  ;  that  is,  he  was  to  act  the  part  of  the 
prophet  for  Moses,  and  Moses  was  to  be  to  him  instead 
of  God. 

Here,  then,  we    have  the  scrip'-'M-al  definition   of  the 


MESSIANIC    PROPHECIES.  237 

prophet.  He  was  one  who  received  a  message  from  God 
and  dehvered  it  to  those  for  whom  it  was  intended.  He 
was  God's  "  spokesman  "  and  "  mouth,"  the  bearer  and 
proclaimer  of  the  Lord's  will.  He  was  "  the  man  of 
God,"  his  message  the  word  of  God.  Through  him  God 
spake  (Heb.  i,  i,  2) :  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in 
divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by 
the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by 
his  Son,"  In  each  case,  whether  by  the  prophets  or  by 
the  Son,  the  speaker  is  God.  Similar  is  the  strong  testi- 
mony of  the  apostle  Peter:  "Knowing  this  first,  that 
no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  private  interpretation. 
For  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man  :  but  men 
spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost" 
(2  Peter  i,  20,  21). 

According  to  the  inspired  writers,  therefore,  prophecy 
is  a  message  from  God,  a  divine  communication,  wherein 
the  will  and  purpose  of  God  are  revealed  to  men. 

A  very  prominent,  an  essential  element  in  biblical 
prophecy  is  prediction.  The  word  prophecies  is  to  be 
understood,  in  this  discussion,  as  equivalent  to  prediction, 
the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  touching  the  ad- 
vent, person,  offices,  work,  and  glory  of  the  Messiah. 
But  before  proceeding  with  the  subject  another  matter 
closely  allied  to  it  demands  attention  and  must  be 
noticed. 

n.  The  prophecies  of  the  Bible,  like  its  miracles,  are 
unique.  They  stand  alone  in  the  field  of  literature,  for 
they  appeal  directly  to  God  as  their  Author.  We  recite 
again  the  words  of  Peter:  "  Knowing  this  first"  (that  is, 
we  recognize  this  as  primary  truth,  we  settle  it  definitely 
in  our  minds  when  we  sit  down  to  the  study  of  prophecy), 
"  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  private  interpre- 
tation." Three  words  here  require  notice:  i.  The  verb 
"is"  is  not  the  ordinar)'  Greek  esti,  but  "■  ginetaiy  "  bc- 
16 


2.38  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

comes,  arises,  comes  into  being;"  2.  "Private,"  that  is, 
special,  or,  better,  "  one's  own,"  the  sense  given  it  seven 
times  in  Peter's  epistles  and  so  translated  in  the  Revision 
(i  Peter  iii,  i,  5  ;  ii,  16,  22;  iii,  16,  17);  3.  "Interpreta- 
tion," that  is,  origin,  origination  (so  Lillie).  "  Knowing 
this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  cometh  into 
being  from  one's  own  interpretation,  origination,  and  ap- 
plication," It  is  not  the  fruit  of  the  prophet's  own  con- 
jectures and  calculations  and  shrewd  guesses  as  to  what 
is  going  to  happen.  And  so  the  apostle  immediately 
adds,  "  For  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man." 
Its  origin  is  divine,  its  Author  is  God.  It  was  brought 
to  the  prophet,  as  it  is  brought  to  us,  from  God.  The 
prophets  delivered  what  they  received — nothing  more, 
nothing  less,  and  nothing  different. 

The  naturalistic  theory  of  prophecy  is  that  it  is  only  a 
higher  kind  of  divination  ;  that  the  prophets  of  Israel  and 
heathen  soothsayers  belong  to  the  same  class  ;  both  alike 
are  confined  to  the  sphere  of  the  natural.  Night  and 
day  cannot  be  more  distant  and  distinct.  Let  us  note 
some  of  the  differences  between  the  two.  Prophec}', 
from  its  constitution  and  aim,  cannot  give  predictions 
on  every  sort  of  subject ;  divination  attempts  to  do  pre- 
cisely this.  Prophecy  announces  only  what  stands  in 
organic  and  internal  relation  to  the  plan  of  redemption  ; 
divination  undertakes  to  disclose  the  future  of  persons 
and  empires  totally  apart  from  the  government  of  God. 
Prophecy  deals  with  the  course  and  development  of  God's 
kingdom  in  the  world  ;  divination  is  satisfied  with  a  puer- 
ile kind  of  fortune-telling.  Prophecy  rests  on  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  divination  on  the  imagi- 
nary intercourse  with  an  extramundane  spirit.  The 
prophet  spoke  the  words  of  the  Lord,  the  words  the 
Lord  put  into  his  mouth  (Jer.  i,  9;  Ezek.  ii,  7);  the 
soothsayer   and   false   prophet   spoke   out   of  their   own 


MESSIANIC   PROPHECIES,  239 

hearts  (Jer.  xiv,  14 ;  xxiii,  26).  The  one  was  object 
truth,  the  other  subjective  presentiment.  The  prophet 
received  his  message  from  without,  from  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  his  own  inteUigence  ;  but  the  soothsayer 
and  false  prophet  evoked  their  oracles  from  the  depths 
of  their  own  spirits.  In  brief,  prophecy  has  for  its  su- 
preme and  ineffable  center  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  All 
its  lines  converge  to  him.  To  him  its  waiting  eyes  are 
lifted  ;  to  glorify  and  honor  him  its  marvelous  lips  are 
opened.  His  kingdom  and  its  victories;  his  coming  and 
the  transcendent  events  connected  with  it ;  his  name, 
surrounded  with  unapproachable  splendor;  his  power, 
without  a  superior  and  without  a  rival ;  his  throne  the 
throne  of  the  universe — such  are  its  exalted  themes. 
Divination  and  necromancy  know  nothing  of  Christ  and 
care  nothing  for  him. 

The  prophets  put  forward  a  divine  claim  for  their  ut- 
terances. And  what  is  not  the  least  proof  of  the  justice 
of  their  claim  is  the  crucial  fact  that  they  rise  to  the  level 
of  their  claim.  Their  claim  and  their  message  square 
with  each  other;  there  is  no  disparity  between  them. 
There  is  that  in  their  message  which  substantiates  their 
claim  to  divine  inspiration.  In  this  respect  the  prophets 
stand  alone,  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
There  is  an  immense  distance  between  the  supernatural 
pretensions  of  augurs  and  soothsayers  and  their  "  re- 
sponses ;  "  while  the  "  spirits "  of  modern  necromancy 
chatter  nonsense  with  the  volubility  of  magpies,  and  with 
no  more  sense  of  responsibility. 

III.  Are  there  Messianic  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment? I  am  almost  ashamed  to  raise  this  question,  a 
question  which  to  those  who  hear  me  must  appear  su- 
perfluous, if  not  silly  ;  and  yet  it  is  one  asked  in  our 
day  and  answered  in  the  negative  by  not  a  few  who  call 
themselves  Christian  teachers.     You  know  full  well  that 


240  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  i)o.stulates,  or  working  rules,  of  rationalistic  criticism 
are  these:  i.  The  message  of  the  prophet  springs  from 
the  exigencies  or  circumstances  of  his  contemporaries  ;  it 
has  its  roots  in  the  needs  of  the  people  of  his  own  time. 
2.  His  message  is  addressed  to  his  contemporaries,  is  in- 
tended for  them  preeminently,  if  not  exclusively.  3.  His 
message  never  transcends  the  horizon  of  his  own  age. 
When  he  speaks  of  the  distant  future  his  predictions  are 
ideal ;  they  are  not  definite,  distinct,  precise,  nor  indeed 
can  be.  That  is,  prophecy,  according  to  this  miserable 
theory,  never  outruns  the  historical  process ;  it  cannot 
stretch  beyond  the  stage  of  realized  history  reached  in 
his  time,  save  in  a  vague  and  indefinite  way.  If  this  be 
true,  then  we  must  reconstruct  all  our  interpretations  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy  and  all  the  inspired  commen- 
tary on  it  in  the  New.  We  must  bind  up  the  predictions 
to  the  prophet's  own  age,  and  suffer  no  light  to  fall  on 
the  things  to  come.  Over  these  an  impenetrable  veil 
hangs  which  God  himself  cannot — at  least,  does  not — lift ! 
And  so  Isa.  xl-lxvi  becomes  Deutero-Isaiah,  written  by 
the  Great  Unknown  who  lived  in  exile  times  and  per- 
sonally knew  Cyrus.  Ezekiel's  wheels  stop  short  in  the 
foundations  of  the  second  temple,  or  whirl  poetically  in 
heaven.  Daniel's  visions  it  confines  to  the  Maccabean 
war  and  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  the  Olivet  proph- 
ecy of  the  Lord  Jesus  (Matt,  xxiv,  xxv)  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse of  John  it  arrests  at  A.  D.  70,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
The  hypothesis  minimizes  everything  to  the  last  degree. 
It  practically  denies  that  God  has  distinctly  foretold  any- 
thing as  disassociated  from  the  past,  and  then  it  tries  to 
compensate  for  so  great  a  loss  by  a  species  of  spiritual 
inflation.  Such  is  the  principle  of  the  much  vaunted 
"scientific  method"  of  biblical  interpretation  in  these 
closing  years  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

We  deny  and  repudiate  the  "  method,"  and  cite  against 


MESSIANIC    PROPHECIES.  24  1 

it  the  witness  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
What  answer  is  made  to  our  denial  and  our  appeal? 
It  is  found  in  the  defiant  words  of  Professor  Kuenen,  as 
quoted  by  Professor  Bissell :  "  We  must  either  cast  aside 
as  worthless  our  dearly  bought  scientific  method  or 
must  forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the 
Old.'" 

The  New  Testament,  however,  cannot  be  so  summarily 
set  aside  in  this  contention.  The  New  Testament  is  at 
least  an  equal  sharer  in  the  glory  or  the  dishonor  of  the 
Old.  You  cannot  lay  the  hand  of  violence  on  the  Mes- 
sianic predictions  of  the  older  volume  without  robbing 
the  Son  of  God  of  his  precious  dignities,  his  eternal 
crown  rights.  Whatever  becomes  of  this  boasted  "  scien- 
tific method  " — and  we  believe  that  devout  men  will  yet 
clap  their  hands  at  it  and  hiss  it  from  its  place  of  bad 
preeminence — we  dare  not  surrender,  because  we  cannot 
afford  to  surrender,  the  principles  of  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies  which  are  sanctioned  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles. 

There  is  a  true  and  infallible  scientific  method  of  ex- 
egesis made  ready  to  our  hands.  The  New  Testament 
is  the  best  manual  of  Old  Testament  hermeneutics  in 
existence.  Its  principles  are  clear,  exact,  immutable; 
and  they  are  as  strictly  applicable  now  as  in  the  six- 
teenth century  or  the  first.  Its  examples  are  copious, 
luminous,  and  unerring.  Its  spirit  is  reverential  and 
profound.  To  this  method,  taught  us  by  the  Saviour 
and  the  apostles,  we  do  well  to  take  heed. 

But  is  there  evidence  that  such  a  method  of  exegesis 
is  furnished  us  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures?  There 
is,  and  we  proceed  to  point  out  only  one  feature  of  it, 
namely,  that  which  relates  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Messianic  prophecies. 


242  AXTI-HIGMER    CRITICISM. 

In  Luke  xxlv,  27,  we  read,  "And  beginning  at  Moses 
and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  "  (interpreted,  the  verb 
is  the  foundation  for  our  English  Jiermcneutics)  "  unto  them 
in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself"  How 
wide  a  range  our  Lord's  exposition  took  is  obvious  from 
this  language  :  Moses,  the  Pentateuch  ;  all,  not  some,  of 
the  prophets ;  all,  not  some,  of  the  Scriptures.  Like- 
wise in  Luke  xxiv,  44,  we  find  the  risen  Redeemer  em- 
ploying these  far-reaching  words  :  "  These  are  the  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that 
all  things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  psalms,  con- 
cerning me."  "Then  opened  he  their  understanding, 
that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures  "  (verse  45). 
Here  is  the  norm  given  to  the  apostles  and  disciples, 
given  also  to  all  teachers  and  students  of  the  Bible  for  all 
time,  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures. The  Lord  Jesus,  after  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  and  shortly  before  his  ascension  into  glory,  most 
solemnly  affirmed  and  testified  that  he  himself  is  the  great 
center  and  subject  of  the  Thorah,  of  the  former  and 
latter  prophets,  and  of  the  Hagiographa;  that  is,  Christ 
is  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  every  part  of  it,  its  sub- 
stance and  its  sum.  Hear  now  the  testimony  of  two 
commentators  on  this  passage  :  "  If  the  exegete  should 
read  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  without  knowing  to 
whom  and  to  what  they  everywhere  point,  the  New 
Testament  clearly  directs  his  understanding,  and  places 
him  under  an  obligation,  if  he  would  be  a  sound  Christian 
teacher,  to  acknowledge  its  authority  and  interpret  ac- 
cordingly. Doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  our  Lord's  and  of 
his  apostles'  method  of  expounding  involves  necessarily 
a  renunciation  of  Christianity"  (Meyer).  "They  who 
consult  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  his  apostles  with 
respect  to  the  prophecies  concerning  the   Messiah  need 


MESSIANIC    PROPHECIES.  243 

not  grope  in  uncertainty."  lie  is  the  "  whole  tenor  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  its  typical  and  symbolical  char- 
acter "    (Van  Oosterzee). 

That  the  evangelists  and  the  apostles  closely  followed 
the  method  given  them  by  the  Lord  himself  every  in- 
telligent reader  of  their  inspired  writings  knows.  We 
have  time  to  point  but  a  few  of  them. 

I.  TJie  Gospels.  Matthew  again  and  again  employs  the 
suggestive  formula  in  the  opening  of  the  first  gospel, 
"  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through 
the  prophet ;"  that  is,  he  constantly  compares  and  con- 
fronts events  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  Lord 
Jesus  with  Old  Testament  predictions,  and  finds  their 
exact  fulfillment  in  the  Son  of  man,  the  heavenly  king. 
Matthew's  has  well  been  called  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Ful- 
fillment." He  finds  Christ  in  Hosea  xi,  i  :  "  Out  of 
Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son."  Israel  is  the  Messianic 
nation  ;  its  history  has  foreshadowings  and  preintima- 
tions  of  the  earthly  history  of  Him  whose  goings  forth 
are  from  of  old,  from  everlasting.  Israel  mirrors  the 
Messiah  ;  Christ  is  the  true  Israel.  He  .appeals  to  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  the  prophets  that  Jesus  should 
be  despised  and  rejected,  "  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
w^as  spoken  by  the  prophets.  He  shall  be  called  a  Naza- 
rene." 

Mark  opens  his  account  of  the  Lord  Jesus  with  quota- 
tions from  Isaiah  and  Malachi,  thus  binding  up  his  narra- 
tive with  the  Messianic  predictions,  thus  giving  us  a  hint 
at  the  outset  of  the  character  and  intent  of  his  writing. 
For,  while  the  second  gospel  is  not  so  full  of  Old  Testa- 
ment quotations  as  the  first,  it  contains,  nevertheless,  the 
matchless  portrait  of  the  Messiah  as  the  servant  of  Je- 
hovah, of  whom  Isaiah  so  rapturously  speaks. 

Luke  records  that  in  the  first  sermon  Jesus  preached 
(that  at  Nazareth,  iv)  he  quoted  Isaiah's  prophecy  of  the 


244  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

qualifications  and  mission  of  the  Messiah  (Ixi),  and  ap- 
pHed  it  directly  to  himself:  "  This  day  is  this  Scripture 
fulfilled  in  your  ears."  And  near  the  close  of  the  public 
ministry  Luke  tells  us  Jesus  said  at  the  supper,  "  For  I 
say  unto  you,  that  this  that  is  written  must  be  accom- 
plished in  me,  And  he  was  reckoned  among  the  trans- 
gressors: for  the  things  concerning  me  have  an  end" 
(xxii,  37).  Between  these  two  points,  the  opening  and 
the  termination  of  the  ministry,  the  third  gospel  shows 
that  he  does  the  work  and  fulfills  the  predictions  of 
Messiah,  the  promised  Deliverer. 

John,  after  making  fifteen  most  remarkable  Messianic 
quotations,  and  declaring  and  proving  that  these  have 
their  ample  accomplishment  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  formu- 
lates his  memorable  conclusion:  "  But  these  are  written, 
that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name  " 
(xx,  31). 

2.  TJie  Acts.  From  this  book  we  select  three  witnesses 
in  proof  that  the  apostles  did  pursue  to  the  very  letter  the 
method  of  preaching  and  teaching  indicated  to  them  by 
the  Lord,  namely,  a  confident  appeal  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecies  concerning  Messiah.  The  second  chap- 
ter of  Acts  contains  Peter's  address  to  the  multitude  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  I  heartily  concur  in  Professor 
Stifler's  opinion  of  this  address :  "  As  an  example  of 
persuasive  argument  it  has  no  rival.  The  more  it  is 
studied  the  more  its  beauty  and  power  are  disclosed." 
The  theme  is  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  the  evidence 
he  adduces  are  the  Messianic  predictions  of  Joel  and 
David.  Peter's  exposition  and  application  of  these  Scrip- 
tures to  the  events  of  Pentecost  are  irresistible  :  "  There- 
fore let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God 
hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  crucified,  both 
Lord  and  Christ."     Only  by  the  fulfillment  of  the  word 


MESSIANIC    PROPHECIES.  245 

of  Jesus  can  we  explain  this  exegetical  power  of  the 
Gahlean  fisherman  :  "  Ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you  :  and  ye  shall  be  wit- 
nesses unto  me"  (Acts  i,  8). 

A  second  witness  (Acts  viii)  is  Philip  the  evangelist, 
who  preached  Jesus  to  the  perplexed  Ethiopian  officer 
out  of  Isa.  liii.  His  whole  instruction  seems  to  be 
founded  on  that  Messianic  Scripture,  of  the  meaning  and 
application  of  which  Philip  had  not  a  shadow  of  a  doubt. 
Fancy,  if  you  can,  this  servant  of  God,  guided  as  he  was 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  interpreting  the  chapter  to  mean 
Messiah  when  it  means  suffering  Israel,  the  godly  rem- 
nant of  the  chosen  people,  as  the  critics  now  tell  us. 
Nothing  but  the  inexorable  logic  of  their  false  hypothesis 
will  account  for  the  strange  spectacle  of  Christian  teach- 
ers (so  called)  going  bodily  over  to  Jewish  ground  and 
•  denying  Messiah  a  place  in  Isa.  liii.  By  the  "scientific 
method  "  they  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  no  pre- 
diction of  the  distant  future  can  be  other  than  ideal, 
vague.  But  here  is  one  most  distinct,  particular,  and 
minute.  Therefore  it  must  mean  suffering  Israel  of  the 
prophet's  own  time.  That  it  is  Messiah  who  is  meant, 
he  and  no  other,  Matthew,  Luke,  John,  Philip,  Paul,  and 
Peter  all  attest  (Matt,  viii,  17;  Luke  xxii,  37;  John  xii, 
37,  38;  Acts  viii,  32,  33;   Rom.  x,  16;  i  Peter  ii,  24,  25). 

The  third  witness  is  Paul,  whose  adherence  to  the 
Saviour's  method  is  even  more  marked  than  that  of  the 
other  apostles.  Soon  after  his  conversion  we  read  that 
*'  Saul  increased  the  more  in  strength,  and  confounded 
the  Jews  which  dwelt  at  Damascus,  proving  that  this  is 
very  Christ  "  (Acts  ix,  22).  His  proof  he  derived  from  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  (xviii,  28).  At  Thessalonica, 
"  as  his  custom  was,  he  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the 
Scriptures,  opening  and  alleging  that  Christ  must  needs 
have  suffered  and  risen  again  from  the  dead  ;  and  that 


246  AMJ-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

this  Jesus,  whom  I  preach  unto  you,  is  Christ  "  (xvii, 
1-3).  In  his  defense  before  Agrippa  he  said  :  "  I  con- 
tinue unto  this  day,  witnessing  both  to  small  and  great, 
saying  none  other  things  than  those  which  the  prophets 
and  Moses  did  say  should  come  :  that  Christ  should  suf- 
fer, and  that  he  should  be  the  first  that  should  rise  from  the 
dead,  and  should  show  light  unto  the  people,  and  to  the 
Gentiles  "  (xxvi,  22,  23).  Finally,  in  his  address  to  the 
chief  men  of  the  Hebrew  colony  at  Rome,  he  "expounded 
and  testified  the  kingdom  of  God,  persuading  them  con- 
cerning Jesus,  both  out  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  out  of 
the  prophets,  from  morning  till  evening"  (xxviii,  23). 

3.  Hebrcivs.  The  author  of  this  Scripture  has  given 
us  an  inspired  commentary  on  ancient  Judaism.  In  that 
system  he  finds  the  fruitful  seeds  of  Christianity.  Its 
complex  services  he  describes  as  "  a  figure  for  the  time 
then  present,"  rather,  a  parable,  an  acted  parable,  in 
which  the  glories  of  Messiah  and  the  Messianic  age  are 
pictorially  disclosed.  He  finds  that  Jesus  Christ,  in  the 
dignity  of  his  person,  in  the  majesty  of  his  offices,  and 
in  the  perfection  of  his  work,  was  and  is  the  substance 
and  reality  of  tabernacle  and  temple,  of  altar  and  priest, 
of  victim  and  blood-shedding.  According  to  the  Hebrews 
Judaism  was  a  Messianic  prophecy;  Judaism  was  a  kind 
of  kindergarten  school  in  which  God  by  a  splendid  series 
of  object  lessons  taught  his  people  that  in  due  time  One 
would  appear  who  would  make  good  every  promise  and 
prophecy — the  proi^het  of  whom  Moses  was  but  a  faint 
t}'pe  ;  the  priest  of  whom  Aaron  was  but  a  dim  reflec- 
tion ;  the  offering  of  which  the  sacrifices  were  but  thin 
shadows.  In  Hebrews  the  Holy  Spirit  sets  aside  the 
typical  and  the  temporary  to  make  room  for  the  perma- 
nent and  the  real.  Moses,  Joshua,  Aaron,  the  old  cove- 
nant, the  ordinances  and  sanctuary,  the  earthly  Jerusalem, 
and  the  earthly  congregation,  are   all    one  by  one   laid 


MESSIANIC    PROPHECIES.  247 

aside,  that  their  substance  and  sum  may  come  in,  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  and  the  heavenly  assembly,  and  the  heav- 
enly city.  Every  rite  and  ceremony  of  the  Mosaic 
institutions  had  a  voice  for  Israel  ;  and  their  voice  was 
prophetic.  Their  voice  was  the  significant  word,  Wait. 
Wait,  and  the  true  Deliverer  will  appear ;  wait,  and  the 
true  priest  will  come  ;  wait,  and  the  true  atonement,  the 
one  supreme  offering,  will  be  presented — the  offering 
which  shall  perfect  forever  them  that  are  sanctified  ;  the 
offering  that  will  nevermore  need  to  be  supplemented  by 
a  sickly  little  Protestant  purgatory  in  the  middle  state. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  words  of  Jesus  lie  at  the  basis  of 
the  New  Testament  exposition  of  the  Old  :  "  All  things 
must  be  fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  psalms,  concerning  me." 
This  was  the  ground  of  the  patristic  interpretation.  It 
was  the  ground  of  all  interpretation  esteemed  Christian 
until  a  very  recent  period.  The  consent  of  Latin,  Greek, 
and  Protestant  exegesis,  the  verdict,  we  may  say,  of  an 
eighteen  hundred  years'  Christianity,  is  not  to  be  rashly 
set  aside.  If  a  method  so  cardinal,  so  central,  so  uni- 
versal is  given  up  as  false — a  method  which  has  back  of 
it  the  sanction  of  Christ  and  the  apostles— where  is  there 
another  that  in  any  proper  and  adequate  sense  can  take 
its  place?  The  newer  criticism?  The  method  that 
empties  the  Old  Testament  of  much  of  its  meaning  and 
ties  it  up  to  Jewish  times  ?  We  repudiate  it,  because  it 
thrusts  a  sacrilegious  Jehoiakim's  penknife  between  the 
two  Testaments  and  ruthlessly  dismembers  them,  destroy- 
ing their  unity.  We  accept  Kuenen's  alternative,  and 
gladly  say,  We  cast  aside  as  worthless  the  rationalistic 
scientific  method,  and  adhere  now  and  forever  to  the 
holy  method  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  inspired  apostles. 

IV.  The  four  gospels  are  most  intimately  related  to 
the  Messianic  prophecies. 


248  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  prophets  have  drawn  an  august  portrait  of  the 
Messiah  :  his  person,  offices,  mission,  and  qualifications 
for  his  vast  undertaking;  his  suffering,  death,  resurrec- 
tion, and  glory  are  described  with  a  minuteness  of  detail 
which  ordinarily  belongs  only  to  history.  They  teach 
that  Messiah  is  to  be  a  king,  and  that  he  shall  establish 
a  kingdom  which  shall  be  world-wide  and  glorious.  They 
describe  him  as  the  servant  of  Jehovah  ;  they  assure  us 
that  he  will  accomplish  God's  will  on  earth  and  man's 
neglected  duty ;  that  he  will  meet  every  divine  require- 
ment and  every  human  need.  They  furthermore  an- 
nounce that  Messiah  will  be  the  seed  of  the  woman, 
the  offspring  of  Abraham,  the  son  of  David.  A  veritable 
man  Messiah  is  to  be,  one  who  shall  be  incorporated 
with  our  race,  the  Son  of  man,  the  Son  of  mankind,  there- 
fore the  kinsman  Redeemer  of  all  them  that  believe. 
Moreover,  the  prophets  witness  to  the  immensely  signifi- 
cant fact  that  Messiah  is  the  Lord  of  glory,  that  it  is 
Jehovah  himself  who  is  to  visit  and  redeem  his  people. 

Now,  in  these  four  great  features  in  the  portrait  of 
Messiah  as  drawn  by  the  prophets  we  have  the  founda- 
tion of  the  fourfold  account  of  the  Lord  Jesus  contained 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  evangelists  bring  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Jesus  alongside  of  Messiah's  picture  in 
the  prophets,  the  historical  by  the  side  of  the  predictive, 
and  the  two  are  found  perfectly  to  match.  The  gospels 
prove  that  the  Deliverer  promised  to  Old  Testament 
saints  has  appeared  in  the  person  of  Jesus  ;  that  what 
was  foretold  of  him  is  fulfilled  in  Jesus  ;  that,  therefore, 
Jesus  is  worthy  to  receive  the  illustrious  names  of  the 
Deliverer:  he  is  the  King  of  Israel,  the  Servant  of  Jeho- 
vah, the  Son  of  man,  and  the  Son  of  God. 

V.  Progressive  element  in  the  Messianic  prophecies. 
What  we  find  respecting  the  prophecies  is  also  true  of 
the  whole  Bible.     It  is  a  book  of  growth.     Men  con- 


MESSIANIC   PROPHECIES.  249 

struct  their  theological  systems  as  they  build  a  house, 
laying  beam  on  beam.  God  constructs  his  system  of 
revealed  truth  as  he  does  the  living  oak  of  the  forest. 
He  plants  the  germ  among  the  clods  of  a  wasted  Eden, 
and  it  grows  and  expands  parallel  with  the  germs  of  the 
race  till  in  the  fullness  of  time  all  nations  may  find  shelter 
under  its  mighty  boughs. 

Messiah  is  the  supreme  object  of  all  prophecy,  as  he  is 
of  all  Scripture  and  of  God's  counsels.  The  little 
streamlet  of  prophecy  which  sprang  up  in  Eden  was 
swelled  by  continual  accessions  through  the  antediluvian, 
patriarchal,  and  Hebrew  ages  until  it  became  a  river  and 
a  flood.  At  first  the  promise  of  a  redeemer  was  public 
and  promiscuous,  the  promise  that  the  seed  of  the 
woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head  (Gen.  iii,  15). 
He  might  be  born  anywhere,  and  might  spring  from 
any  one  of  the  many  branches  of  the  human  family.  The 
only  certain  thing  was  that  he  was  coming,  and  that  he 
was  to  descend  from  Eve,  the  mother  of  us  all.  But  ere 
long  a  restricting  process  began,  and  by  a  series  of  limita- 
tions the  promise  was  rendered  more  and  more  definite 
and  precise ;  the  circle  within  which  the  hope  of  the 
world  was  to  appear  was  drawn  closer  and  closer.  Abra- 
ham was  named  the  chosen  progenitor  of  Messiah  (Gen. 
xxii,  18).  Jacob  predicted  that  in  Judah's  line  must 
Shiloh,  the  peace-bringer,  appear  (Gen.  xlix,  10).  The 
exhaustive  process  narrowed  the  line  to  David's  royal 
house  :  Messiah  shall  be  David's  Son  and  Lord  (2  Sam. 
vii  ;  Psalm  Ixxxix,  3-5,  19-37).  Isaiah  announced  that  he 
should  be  born  of  a  woman,  the  son  of  the  Virgin  (Isa. 
vii,  14).  Micah  foretold  that  Bethlehem  was  to  be  the 
place  of  his  birth  (Micah  v,  2).  Haggai  taught  the  na- 
tion to  look  for  the  promised  salvation  during  the  exist- 
ence of  the  second  temple  (Hag.  ii,  6-9).  Daniel  dated 
the  time  of  his  coming  at  the  close  of  the  sixty-ninth  of 


250  ANTI-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

his  seventy  mystic  weeks  (Dan.  ix,  26).  Thus  this  long 
Hne  of  predictions,  extending  over  a  period  of  more  than 
three  thousand  years,  grows  in  brightness  and  fulhiess 
as  feature  after  feature  in  the  Hfe  and  character  of  the 
great  Messiah  is  added,  until  Malachi  introduces  him  to 
the  waiting  people  of  God  as  the  messenger  of  the  cove- 
nant, with  his  forerunner  preparing  his  way  before  him  ; 
and  the  portrait  stands  complete.  From  first  to  last, 
from  Genesis  to  Malachi,  there  is  progress,  movement, 
growth. 

But  there  is  much  more  in  the  Messianic  prophecies. 
The  Old  Testament  contains  a  noble  succession  of 
"figures  of  Him  that  was  to  come,"  both  of  persons  and 
institutions.  Foremost  stands  Adam,  who,  as  head  of 
the  race  and  of  the  old  creation,  is  the  type  of  Him  who 
is  head  of  the  redeemed  race  and  of  the  new  creation. 
Then  Mclchizedek,  king  and  priest,  is  the  image  of  Him 
who  is  likewise  Priest  and  King  in  the  power  of  an  endless 
life.  Next  David,  who  in  his  sufferings  and  in  his  glory 
so  marvelously  resembles  his  adorable  descendant  that 
the  latter  is  even  sometimes  designated  by  the  name  of 
David  (Ezek.  xxxiv,  23,24).  After  him  is  Jonah,  who  is 
not  so  much  a  predicter  as  in  his  own  person  a  predic- 
tion of  the  Messiah. 

Solemn  is  the  memorial  feast  of  Israel's  exodus,  or- 
dained by  Moses  in  the  paschal  supper ;  but  v.'hat  is  the 
deepest  significance  of  that  paschal  Lamb  of  which  not  a 
bone  was  to  be  broken?  "  Even  Christ  our  passover  is 
sacrificed  for  us,"  Paul  replies.  Beneficial  is  the  uplifting 
of  the  brazen  serpent,  by  which  death  is  arrested  in  the 
camp  of  Israel.  But  what  significance  has  this  ordinance 
of  Moses,  not  merely  for  Israel,  but  for  all  following  cen- 
turies? "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness, even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up ;  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 


MESSIANIC  rRornEciEs.  251 

eternal  life,"  Jesus  makes  answer.  Majestic  was  the 
ritual  of  the  great  day  of  atonement  when  the  high  priest 
passed  the  veil  into  the  most  holy  place,  and,  standing 
before  the  ark,  sprinkled  the  blood  on  the  mercy  seat. 
But  has  it  no  higher  aim  than  to  calm  the  conscience  of 
the  sinful  nation  for  one  year?  Romans  answers  :  "  Whom 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  "  (a  mercy  seat) 
"through  faith  in  his  blood."  Hebrews  also  makes  answer: 
"  But  this  man,  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins 
forever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God." 

But  new  and  strange  features  are  yet  added  to  the  Mes- 
sianic portrait.  The  music  of  the  prophetic  harp  emits 
mournful  tones  which  tell  of  suffering,  of  oppression  and 
wounds  and  bruises  to  be  inflicted  on  the  coming  One. 
He  is  to  be  the  holy  sin  bearer,  a  silent  sufferer,  a  slaugh- 
tered lamb.  In  the  great  Messianic  psalm,  the  twent)-- 
second,  the  very  words  he  uttered  on  the  cross  are  found, 
made  ready  to  his  hand.  The  intensity  and  awfulness  of  his 
sufferings  as  priest  and  victim  are  depicted  with  graphic 
power.  His  patience,  humility,  benevolence,  love,  and 
piety  call  out  the  fiercest  enmity  of  wicked  men  and  of  Sa- 
tan against  him.  They  rush  upon  him  open-mouthed,  like 
ferocious  beasts.  They  roar  about  him  like  savage  bulls 
of  Bashan.  He  stands  in  the  midst  of  them  as  though 
surrounded  by  baying  dogs — he  innocent  and  guileless, 
like  the  hunted  hind.  They  part  his  garments  among 
them,  and  cast  lots  upon  his  vesture.  And  his  pitiful 
wail,  his  lonely  cry,  is,  "  Be  not  far  from  me  ;  for  trouble 
is  near  ;  for  there  is  none  to  help." 

In  another  psalm,  the  sixty-ninth,  his  sorrowful  plaint 
is  that  every  delicacy  of  feeling  is  violated  by  his  pitiless 
foes.  Shame  covers  his  face,  reproach  breaks  his  heart. 
He  is  the  song  of  the  drunkards  as  they  reel  through 
the  streets,  and  he  is  all  alone  in  his  sufferings,  with  none 
to  pity  or  to  help. 


■0- 


ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


In  Isa.  liii  he  is  the  "man  of  sorrows."  Twelve 
times  over  in  that  chapter  it  is  declared  that  his  suffer- 
ings are  vicarious  and  propitiator)-.  In  Daniel  he  is  to 
be  cut  off  and  to  have  nothing;  while  in  Zechariah  the 
sword  of  justice  leaps  from  its  scabbard  and  is  bathed  in 
his  blood. 

But  he  is  to  be  the  conqueror  of  the  grave,  the  death 
of  death  ;  and  he  is  to  come  the  second  time  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven  to  punish  the  wicked  and  to  raise  his  sleep- 
ing saints  from  their  graves. 

The  words  of  Herder  are  no  less  beautiful  than  they 
are  true  :  "  Shell  and  husk,  in  which  the  precious  kernel 
is  hidden,  fall  away  one  after  another,  until  at  length 
this  kernel  itself,  the  Christ,  appears  personally;  and  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament  rests  upon  the  evermore 
full  and  complete  development  of  the  single  early  proph- 
ecies and  promises  of  God,  which  pervade  it,  in  which 
the  unity  of  the  divine  plan  is  fully  perceived  only  when 
Christ  shall  have  come  in  his  kingdom." 

What,  now,  is  our  conclusion?  We  may  sum  it  up  in 
one  sentence :  Jesus  Christ  is  the  key  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures.  Expel  him  from  its  pages,  and  the 
book  becomes  meaningless,  of  no  more  worth  to  us  than 
the  speculations  of  Philo  or  the  rhapsodies  of  blind 
Homer.  Give  Christ  his  proper  place,  his  full  place,  in 
the  law  and  in  the  prophets  and  in  the  Psalms — the  place 
the  New  Testament  assigns  him — and  those  ancient  Scrip- 
tures glow  with  a  splendor  above  the  brightness  of  the 
starry  firmament. 


THE   GOSPELS.  253 


THE  GOSPELS. 


BY  PROFESSOR  ERNST  F.  STROETER,  PH.D., 
Denver  University, 


I. 

The  four  gospels  tell  us  the  story  of  the  life,  the  death, 
and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  man, 
the  Messiah  of  Israel,  the  Word  made  flesh.  They  are 
the  only  records  ever  received  by  the  Church  generally 
as  giving  a  full  and  true  account  of  that  wonderful  person- 
age. All  the  Christ-life  manifested  in  the  earth  for  nearly 
nineteen  centuries  is  based,  confessedly,  on  the  state- 
ments made  and  the  picture  given  of  Jesus  in  these 
four  gospels.  No  Church,  no  individual  believer,  ever 
claimed  that  any  other  than  the  Christ  of  the  gospels  was 
to  them  and  is  to  them  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the 
Life.  God  has,  in  all  the  ages  of  the  Church,  borne  wit- 
ness by  revealing  his  Son  in  all  those  who  have  believed 
on  him,  according  to  the  record  we  have  in  these  gos- 
pels. The  Christ-life  of  self-denying,  self-sacrificing  love 
and  service,  of  patient  suffering  under  persecution,  of 
perfect  submission  to  the  Father's  will ;  more  than  this  : 
the  life  of  the  risen  Christ,  complete  victory  over  the 
terrors  of  death  and  the  grave,  of  constant  triumph  over 
all  opposing  world  powers,  of  conscious  deliverance  from 
the  enslavement  of  sin  and  lust — all  this  has,  a  million 
times  over,  been  actually  lived  and  experienced  through- 
out the  entire  gospel  age,  and  is  the  blessed  experience 
of  thousands  to-day.  And  who  are  these?  They  are 
those,  and  only  those,  who  with  their  hearts  believe  the 
17 


2  54  ANTI-IIIGIIEK   CRITICISM. 

records  contained  in  these  four  gospels,  how  that  Jesus 
was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  a  Jewish  maid 
in  Bethlehem,  baptized  of  John,  anointed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  tempted  of  the  devil,  followed,  doubted,  believed 
in  and  denied,  in  turn,  by  his  disciples,  rejected  by  his 
nation,  betrayed  by  Judas,  delivered  to  be  crucified,  died 
and  was  buried,  on  the  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the 
dead,  appeared  alive  to  his  own  for  forty  days,  ate  and 
drank  with  them,  and  was  then  bodily  taken  up  from  them 
into  heaven,  claiming  that  all  power  was  given  unto  him 
in  heaven  and  in  earth. 

It  is  quite  true  that  all  men  do  not  acknowledge  that 
this  same  Christ  is  to-day  personally  alive  and  manifest 
in  those  that  believe  on  him.  But  all  who  have  believed 
on  him  are  of  one  mind  on  this  point.  They  declare 
with  Paul,  We  are  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless 
we  live  ;  yet  not  we,  but  Christ  liveth  in  us.  To  them  this 
matter  of  Christ  in  us,  the  hope  of  glory,  is  a  blessed  re- 
ality, a  conscious  experience,  as  much,  and  more  so,  than 
the  enjoyment  of  good  physical  health  or  the  comforts 
of  home  and  a  good  bank  account.  Thus  we  behold 
a  great  cloud  of  witnesses  reaching  down  from  apostolic 
da)'s  to  this,  of  men  and  women  of  whom  the  world  was 
not  worthy,  who  are  unanimous  in  declaring,  whatever 
differences  may  have  existed  or  may  still  exist  between 
tlicm,  that  Christ  is  their  life.  And  they  will  know  of 
no  other  pattern  or  power  for  their  spiritual  life  with 
Christ  in  God  but  the  Christ  of  the  four  gospels.  In  the 
nature  of  things  this  innumerable  host  of  witnesses  out  of 
all  ages,  nations,  tongues,  and  creeds  must  be  either  all 
telling  a  conscious  falsehood,  or  the  victims  of  the  most 
stupendous  delusion,  or  they  must  be  speaking  the  truth. 
As  witnesses  in  all  human  affairs  their  testimony  would 
be  unimpeachable.  They  profess  to  have  full  assurance 
of  their  vital  and  eternal  union  with  the  glorified  Christ 


THE   GOSPELS.  255 

simply  by  believing  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his 
Son.  They  deny,  moreover,  on  the  strength  of  plain 
apostolic  teaching,  the  possibility  on  the  part  of  any  un- 
regenerate  person,  however  cultured  or  learned,  to  either 
think  or  speak  of  this  Christ-life  according  to  truth. 
They  find  most  convincing,  though  most  painful,  evi- 
dence of  this  in  much  so-called  Christian  teaching  and 
preaching  of  this  and  former  days.  They  are,  accord- 
ingly, not  greatly  alarmed,  neither  does  it  appear  why 
they  should  be,  over  anything  which  unbeheving  persons, 
though  ever  so  highly  educated  and  well  informed  in  all 
manner  of  science,  may  say  or  write  touching  the  life  of 
the  Christ  in  his  believers  or  their  life  hid  with  him  in 
God.  Mr.  Bierstadt,  we  imagine,  would  not  be  greatly 
affected  by  the  adverse  criticism  of  the  most  highly  cul- 
tured gentleman  upon  the  coloring  in  one  of  his  brilliant 
sunset  paintings  if  he  knew  that  gentleman  to  be  stone 
blind.  Nor  would  Mr.  Paderewski  take  offense  at  the 
remarks  of  a  very  learned  critic  who  had  merely  observed 
his  fingering  while  absolutely  deaf  to  the  matchless  har- 
monies produced  by  his  playing. 

Furthermore,  it  docs  not  appear  to  them  why  those 
who  neither  profess  nor  manifest  any  part  in  the  real, 
though  hidden,  Christ-life,  to  whom  the  crucified  Jesus 
is  no  more  a  living  and  life-giving  reality  than  the  assas- 
sinated Ceesar,  or,  possibly,  the  martyred  Savonarola — 
why  they  should  exhibit  so  much  concern  or  anxiety 
over  the  grounds  of  assurance  for  believers  in  the  risen 
and  glorified  Redeemer,  so  long  as  these  latter  them- 
selves are  quite  content  to  rest  their  assurance  on  the 
witness  of  God  which  he  has  testified  of  his  Son  in  the 
word.  Let  us  suppose  that  all  the  American  residents 
and  travelers  in  the  bounds  of  the  German  empire  were 
to  constitute  themselves  a  committee  of  historical  crit- 
icism  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 


256  ANTl-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

all  that  is  taught  the  German  boys  and  girls  in  the 
schools  of  the  Fatherland  about  the  dates,  authorship, 
and  integrity  of  the  reigning  Hohenzollern  dynasty  was 
trustworthy  from  the  standpoint  of  the  severest  historico- 
dynastical  criticism  ;  whether,  for  example.  Emperor 
William  II  was  a  true  lineal  descendant  of  the  first 
King  of  Prussia  or  of  the  first  Burggrave  of  Nuremberg. 
It  is  barely  possible  that  those  patient  Germans  would 
not  lose  all  patience  with  these  meddlesome  Yankees ; 
it  is  quite  likely  that,  if  disposed  to  submit  to  the  process 
of  inquiry,  they  would  be  able  to  furnish  most  satisfac- 
tory evidence  to  their  inquisitive  friends.  But  it  is  more 
than  likely  that  such  a  procedure  on  the  part  of  aliens 
and  strangers  w^ould  by  them  be  considered  a  very  re- 
markable performance.  Still,  the  evidence  brought  out 
from  the  Prussian  crown  archives  would  have  the  same 
decisive  and  convincing  power  for  the  most  rabid  re- 
publican from  the  United  States,  or  even  from  Paris,  as 
for  the  most  loyal  monarchist  of  Germany.  But  would 
such  evidence  change  the  republican  into  a  monarchist  ? 
Would  it  convert  the  "  revanche  "  breathing  Frenchman 
into  a  patriotic  German?  Let  us  understand  our  posi- 
tion clearly,  when  at  this  late  date,  after  more  than 
eighteen  centuries  of  gospel  preaching  and  gospel  dem- 
onstration, we  are,  as  believers,  challenged  and  warned 
to  inquire  closely  into  the  historical  accuracy,  genuine- 
ness, and  credibility  of  these  old  gospel  records.  It  is  a 
remarkable  thing,  to  be  sure,  that  those  who  know  the 
house  they  are  building  to  be  founded  upon  a  rock,  who 
have  seen  the  most  violent  and  frightful  storms  and  as- 
saults of  persecution,  skepticism,  and  unbelief,  century 
after  century,  dashed  into  foam  against  this  impregnable 
rock,  that  they  should  be  arrested  in  their  work  of  build- 
ing and  be  called  out  and  sent  down  the  must}'  avenues 
of  historical  research  to  examine  over  and   over  a";ain 


THE   GOSPELS.  257 

whether  that  foundation  was  not,  after  all,  in  parts,  at 
least,  only  soft  mud,  covered  with  paper  and  painted  to 
look  like  rock  ! 

Who  is  afraid  ?  What  part  of  that  holy  temple  of  the 
Lord,  all  glorious  within,  which  is  building  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Jesus 
himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone,  is  in  danger  of 
crumbling  or  falling?  Is  it  those  who  have  departed  to 
be  with  Christ?  Have  they  sent  back  tidings  that  there 
is  something  wrong  with  the  historical  foundation  ?  Or 
is  it  those  who  are  to-day  living  in  conscious,  blessed  fel- 
lowship with  him  who  is  Christ  Jesus,  the  same  yester- 
day and  to-day  and  forever,  the  Christ  of  the  gospels? 
Are  they  sounding  the  alarm  because  they  are  feeling 
the  foundations  of  the  apostles  giving  way  under  their 
feet?  What  is  the  meaning  of  all  this  scrutiny  and  in- 
vestigation ?  Is  it  born  of  an  honest  purpose  to  establish 
their  security  and  impregnability?  Or  is  it  a  device  to 
delay,  or  to  stop,  for  a  while,  at  least,  the  progress  and 
approaching  completion  of  the  building?  We  shall  be 
greatly  aided  in  arriving  at  a  correct  estimate  of  the 
whole  proceeding  by  recalling  a  few  fundamental  truths 
which  we  shall  consider  in  the  form  of  propositions. 

I.  The  divine  way  of  attesting  divinely  revealed  and 
divinely  inspired  truth,  as  such,  is  one  thing;  and  the 
human  way  of  requiring,  first  and  last,  historical  proof  for 
the  age,  authenticity,  and  integrity  of  the  gospels  as  liter- 
ary documents  is  quite  another  thing.  We  have  the 
declaration  of  Jehovah  himself:  "  For  as  the  heavens  are 
higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  my  ways  higher  than  your 
ways,  and  my  thoughts  than  your  thoughts  "  (Isa.  Iv,  9). 

What  is  the  divine  method  of  giving  evidence  to  the 
truthfulness  of  these  gospel  records?  To  answer  this 
question  we  must  first  ascertain  the  divine  object  in 
giving  these  revelations.     What  is  the  declared  purpose 


258  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

for  which  the  gospels  were  inspired  and  written  ?  What 
do  they  declare  of  themselves?  In  Matt,  i,  i,  we  read, 
"  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of 
David,  the  son  of  Abraham."  In  Mark  i,  i,  "The  be- 
ginning of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 
Luke  i,  1-4,  is  very  explicit :  "  Forasmuch  as  many  have 
taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those 
things  which  are  most  surely  believed  among  us,  even  as 
they  delivered  them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning 
were  eyewitnesses,  and  ministers  of  the  word  ;  it  seemed 
good  to  me  also,  having  had  perfect  understanding  of  all 
things  from  the  very  first,  to  write  unto  thee  in  order, 
most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  mightest  know  the 
certainty  of  those  things,  wherein  thou  hast  been  instruct- 
ed." And  in  the  closing  pages  of  the  fourth  gospel  we 
read,  retrospectively  (chapter  xx,  31):  "These  are  written, 
that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God ;  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his 
name." 

Thus  we  find  that  these  writings  claim  to  give  four 
things:  i.  The  generation  of  Jesus,  the  son  of  David. 
2.  The  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God.  3.  Certainty  concern- 
ing things  which  had  been  taught  by  word  of  mouth. 
4.  Means  and  opportunity  for  believing  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  for  having  life  through  his 
name.  On  their  own  testimony,  then,  these  records 
promise  to  produce  in  all  who  believe  them  a  certaint}- 
in  the  knowledge  that  Jesus,  the  son  of  David,  is  indeed 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  this  knowledge  is  de- 
clared to  be  life  eternal  (John  xvii,  3).  The  effects  prom- 
ised are,  however,  absolutely  confined  to  them  that  believe. 
There  is  no  intimation  anywhere  within  these  records 
that  any  certainty  whatsoever  in  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  life  eternal,  is  to  result 
from  the  closest  and  most  thorough  research  in  the  domain 


THE   GOSPELS.  259 

of  history,  or  archaeology,  or  philolog)-,  or  any  other 
branch  of  human  science  grouped  around  the  historical 
and  literary  approaches  to  these  records.  They  abound 
with  rich  promises  to  the  believer  that  he  will  be  guided 
into  all  truth,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  himself  will  be  his 
Teacher,  that  the  truth  shall  make  him  free,  that  he  shall 
know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God  (John  vii,  17; 
viii,  32;  xiv,  26;  xvi,  13).  But  they  are  utterly  barren 
of  promise  to  any  and  all  who  do  not  approach  them  as 
Httle  children,  willing  to  know  nothing,  to  be  taught 
everything,  to  be  guided  into  the  truth,  and  to  simph' 
believe  the  testimony  which  the  Father  hath  given  of 
his  Son.  Jesus  himself  is  here  recorded  as  offering  the 
following  prayer:  "I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of 
heaven  and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from 
the  wise  and  prudent"  (understanding),  "and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes"  (Matt,  xi,  25).  If  this  pra}'er  means 
anything  it  must  mean  that  human  wisdom  and  human 
understanding  arc  of  themselves  divinely  shut  out  from 
ever  reaching  or  affording  any  certainty  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,  a  knowledge  which  these  gospel  records 
purpose  to  give.  And  now,  what  is  the  testimony  of 
believers  in  these  records  as  to  the  certainty  they  have 
received  ?  They  are  willing  to  seal  it  with  their  lives 
that  He  who  gave  these  records  of  his  Son,  as  they  be- 
lieve, has  made  good  his  promise  to  them  to  the  fullest 
extent ;  that  he  has  given  them  to  know  that  Jesus  is 
the  Son  of  God  ;  that  he  has  given  them  eternal  life. 
And  they  firmly  believe,  and  act  on  the  belief,  that 
wherever  these  records  are  faithfully  proclaimed  and  im- 
plicitl)'  accepted  in  simple  obedience  of  faith  these  same 
blessed  results  will  unfailingly  follow. 

The  divine  way  of  witnessiuL;  to  the  truthfulness  of 
these  records,  then,  is,  to  preserve  them,  somehow,  amid 
the  general  ruin  and  corruption  of  things  in  the  world  ; 


26o  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

to  see  to  it  that,  somehow,  they  are  presented  to  men 
for  behaving  acceptance,  and  then  to  create,  somehow, 
in  those  who  adopt  this  moral  attitude  toward  them  an 
unwavering  assurance,  an  indisputable  certainty,  that  they 
know  him  whom  the  Father  hath  sent,  and  that  they 
have  eternal  life  through  his  name. 

This  is,  we  admit,  the  exact  reverse  of  the  demands 
of  scientific  criticism,  namely,  first,  the  best  possible 
historical  (that  is,  human)  assurance  that  there  are  no 
flaws  in  the  literary  constitution  of  these  records ;  next, 
we  may  see  as  to  believing  them. 

But  the  divine  way  above  set  forth  is,  after  all,  not 
very  unlike  some  very  natural  human  ways  of  establish- 
ing and  reaching  certainty  in  knowledge.  Look,  for 
example,  at  the  way  in  which  a  human  father  secures 
the  knowledge  of  his  fatherhood  in  his  own  children. 
In  the  first  place,  he  establishes  the  relationship,  not 
the  child.  The  child  is  born.  This  is  essential  and  fun- 
damental. He  is  now  the  child's  father.  He  then  ex- 
ercises all  the  precious  prerogatives  and  all  the  sacred 
responsibilities  of  this  relation,  and  thus  fosters  in  the 
mind  of  the  child  the  firm  conviction  which  becomes 
part  of  its  very  nature  and  being.  This  man  is  my  father. 
How  does  the  child  know  this?  How  did  it  become 
assured  of  this?  Has  it  first  carefully  sifted  to  the  bot- 
tom all  the  existing  historical  evidence?  Has  it  gone 
to  the  sworn  official  records  to  make  sure?  It  is  true 
if  that  father  should  die  the  time  might  come  when 
men  through  ignorance  or  wickedness  will  call  upon 
that  son  to  prove  by  historical  evidence,  critically  tested, 
that  that  dead  man  was  his  father.  But  as  long  as  that 
father  lives  the  son  will  never  lack  a  witness  to  his  son- 
ship.  And  even  if  after  the  father's  death  the  son 
should  be  unable  to  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  doubting 
men  that  he  was  the  son  and  heir  of  that  father,  his  own 


THE    GOSrELS.  261 

assurance  of  that  fact  could  not  be  shaken,  no,  not  by  a 
thousand  deaths. 

We  are  well  aware  that  we  are  laying  ourselves  open 
to  the  objection  that  this  argumentation  is  evading  the 
issue  and  begging  the  question.  We  are  told  that  it  is 
one  thing  to  believe  in  and  be  assured  of,  in  a  spiritual 
way,  the  truths  contained  in  these  gospels,  and  quite 
another  thing  to  determine  b}'  a  process  of  historical 
criticism  whether  these  documents,  as  literary  produc- 
tions, are  genuine,  authentic,  incorrupted,  and  thus 
worthy  of  our  acceptance.  We  have  insisted  from  the 
beginning,  and  still  insist,  that  these  are  two  widely  dif- 
ferent things  indeed.  We  have  the  conviction  that  the 
alarm  and  distress  produced  in  so  many  minds  by  the 
bold  attacks  of  what  is  self-styled  higher  criticism  are  due 
chiefly  to  a  failure  to  clearly  distinguish  between  these 
two  radically  different  things.  We  believe  that  the  value 
and  importance  of  the  demands  of  criticism  are  in  inverse 
ratio  to  the  loudness  and  urgency  with  which  they  are 
being  pressed  upon  us.  We  are  satisfied  that  they  have 
received  and  are  still  receiving  a  share  of  the  attention 
and  consideration  of  believers  in  the  word  out  of  all  pro- 
portion with  their  significanc}'.  We  are  now  simpl}- 
pointing  out  the  fact  that  God,  whom  we  believe  to  be 
the  Giver  of  these  records,  avowedly  proceeds  to  give 
unfailing  assurance  of  the  truthfulness  of  these  records 
on  lines  radically  different  from  those  pursued  by  man 
in  his  critical  methods. 

But  before  we  proceed  with  the  inquiry  into  the  rela- 
tive value  and  importance  of  the  critical  method  let  us 
look  the  objection  squarely  in  the  face  that  we  are  taking 
too  much  for  granted  ;  that  we  are  assuming  that  these 
records  are  given  of  God  and  are  therefore,  a  priori, 
worthy  of  all  acceptation.  We  are  reminded  by  the 
objectors  that  one  of  the  first  if  not  the  first  maxim  of 


262  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

true  scientific  research  is  to  approach  the  subject  under 
examination  with  a  mind  entirely  free  from  all  precon- 
ceived judgment  or  opinion  concerning  it.  We  are  not 
disposed  to  question  the  sincerity  of  those  who  make 
this  demand  even  upon  those  who  profess  to  have 
believed  these  records  as  God-given,  and  by  believing 
to  have  received  the  witness  of  God  in  themselves  that 
God  hath  given  them  eternal  life,  and  that  this  life  is  in 
the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  as  revealed  in  these  gos- 
pels. But  if  that  demand  implies  that  we,  as  believers, 
are  t®  divest  our  minds  of  all  conviction  or  certainty  thus 
divinely  wrought  in  us,  we  simply  say,  ^'  Non  possumus."' 
It  may  as  well  be  understood  first  as  last  that  no  believer 
ever  can,  nor  ever  dare,  stultify  himself,  and  in  approach- 
ing the  question  of  the  credibility  of  these  gospel  records 
pretend  to  act  as  one  who  sees  not  while  he  knows  he 
has  the  eyes  of  his  understanding  opened  to  behold  the 
truth  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  as  pictured  forth 
in  these  records.  As  well  might  the  Pharisees  have 
demanded  of  the  man  who  was  born  blind,  but  had  his 
eyes  opened  by  Jesus — whom  they  knew  not,  though 
they  had  eyes  to  see — that  he  should  continue  to  act 
like  a  blind  man,  to  grope  his  way  by  the  aid  of  a  stick, 
and  to  keep  his  eyes  closed. 

It  is  one  thing  for  believers  in  the  word  to  behold 
without  apprehension  or  alarm,  nay,  even  to  invite  and 
welcome,  the  closest  and  most  searching  scrutiny  of  all 
the  historical  proofs  for  the  credibility  of  these  gospel 
records  from  a  purely  literary  and  critical  standpoint. 
But  it  is  quite  another  thing  for  believers  to  acknowl- 
edge the  supreme  importance  of  settling  the  questions 
of  dates,  authorship,  and  integrity  in  order  to  establish 
the  reasonableness  of  our  belief  in  them.  No  true 
believer  cares,  or  would  care,  even  if  there  were  but  a 
tithe  of  the  historical  evidence  for  the  truthfulness  of 


THE   GOSPELS.  263 

these  gospel  records  that  we  have,  whether  he  is  consid- 
ered foohsh  for  beheving  as  he  does  or  not.  He  knows 
fuH  well  that  every  natural  man,  though  he  were  the 
most  learned  theologian,  will,  in  his  heart,  consider  him 
a  fool  anyhow,  and  would  still  consider  him  such  even 
though  the  historical  evidence  would  be  ten  times 
stronger  than  it  is. 

If,  therefore,  the  entire  absence  of  any  preconceived 
conviction  or  judgment  as  to  the  authority  of  these 
records  is  the  one  essential  qualification  of  a  higher  critic, 
we  are  free  to  confess  that  a  true  believer  can,  ipso  facto, 
never  be  a  genuine  higher  critic.  And  we  are  far  from 
feeling  sorry  over  this.  For,  to  be  candid,  we  have  never 
been  capable  of  a  high  degree  of  enthusiastic  admiration 
for  the  critical  spirit  which  now  claims  the  right  of  way 
so  loudly  in  the  field  of  theological  science.  The  very 
terms  critic  and  criticism  (from  the  Greek  KpiVi,S)  imply 
judgment,  and  judgment  always  implies  superiority  of 
character.  So  long  as  Pilate  knows  not  who  is  the 
accused  at  the  bar  he  may  well  sit  in  judgment  over 
him  and  ask,  "What  is  truth?  "  Rut  he  who  has  once 
known  him  will  henceforth  only  let  the  Truth  judge  him. 

Be  it  remembered  that  historical  criticism,  or  any  other 
form  of  criticism  upon  God's  word,  was  not  born  in  the 
believing  division  of  the  household  of  God.  The  ques- 
tion, "Yea,  hath  God  spoken?"  originated  elsewhere.  It 
is,  therefore,  not  very  likely  that  the  believer  can  or 
Avill  ever  meet  the  nonbeliever  on  exactly  tlie  same 
ground  of  entire  nonpreoccupancy  of  mind  on  this  sub- 
ject. But  we  ask — and  the  question  seems  very  perti- 
nent— if  after  eighteen  centuries  of  gospel  preaching  any 
intelligent  person,  much  less  any  scholar  or  student,  could 
be  found  in  all  Christendom  whose  mind  is  entirely  non- 
preoccupied  by  any  conviction  or  judgment  or  bias  as 
to  the  truthfulness  of  these  records.     He  would  be  as 


264  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

great  a  rarity,  and  about  as  valuable,  as  that  "  intelligent 
juror"  who,  afterreading  all  about  a  murder  case  in  the 
newspapers,  still  has  "  no  opinion  "  on  it. 

Let  us  now  proceed  with  our  inquiry  into  the  relative 
merits  of  the  historical  or  scientific  method  of  arriving 
at  a  certainty  of  knowledge  concerning  these  things.  We 
do  well  to  remember  that  this  historical  method  was  not 
only  available,  but  was  undoubtedly  acted  upon  most 
conscientiously  by  the  official  heads  of  the  Jewish  nation 
in  determining  the  rightfulness  of  the  claims  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  to  be  the  legitimate  heir  of  David's  throne. 
In  the  days  of  the  second  temple  and  of  the  synagogue 
the  apparatus  criticiis  for  determining  the  actual  lineal 
descent  both  of  Mary  and  of  Joseph  from  the  royal  blood 
of  David  was  so  perfect  that  that  question  could  be  set- 
tled beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt.  Jesus  was  openly 
and  popularly  called  and  appealed  to  as  the  son  of  David. 
The  loyalist  party,  the  Pharisees,  who  firmly  believed  in 
the  promised  restoration  of  the  Davidic  dynasty,  under- 
stood perfectly  that  this  meant  a  claim  to  the  legitimate 
heirship  of  David's  throne.  Had  they  been  able  to  dis- 
cover the  slightest  flaw  in  Jesus's  genealogical  claim  we 
can  be  absolutely  sure  that  they  would  have  used  this 
critical  discovery  with  telling  effect  against  him.  But 
there  is  no  record  anywhere  that  the  issue  of  the  Davidic 
descent  of  Jesus  was  ever  raised  by  them.  The  results 
of  the  most  severe  and  searching  historical  criticism  must 
have  been  to  them  unpleasantly  complete  and  convinc- 
ing, and  yet  they  rejected  him. 

Again,  Jesus,  in  his  teaching  and  daily  ministry  among 
the  people,  never  shunned  the  light  of  day.  Openly  he 
taught  in  the  temple  ;  not  in  darkened  cabinets,  but 
under  the  noonday  splendor  of  a  Palestinian  .sky,  did  he 
perform  his  mighty  works.  He  challenges  his  enemies 
to  their  face  to  convince  him  of  sin.     Again  and  again 


THE    GOSPELS.  265 

he  invites  the  keenest  criticism  to  be  appHed  to  his 
works  and  his  teachings.  Does  anyone  pretend  to 
beheve  those  astute  and  keen-sighted  scribes  and  doctors 
of  the  law  were  too  credulous  to  apply  the  most  rigid 
critical  tests  to  his  life  and  ministry?  But  again,  the 
results  to  them  must  have  been  most  bitterly  disappoint- 
ing; for  when  confronted  with  his  mighty  works  their 
last  resort  is  the  blasphemous  declaration  that  they  were 
done  through  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  devils.  And 
when  finally  confronted  with  the  more  perplexing  ques- 
tion, what  to  do  with  the  betrayed  and  captured  Jesus, 
their  only  resort  is  to  false  witnesses  and  a  trumped-up 
charge  of  high  treason.  Granted  only  the  fact  that  Jesus 
lived,  that  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  son  of 
David,  that  he  claimed  to  be  of  a  spotless  character,  the 
results  of  the  intensest  criticism  on  the  part  of  his  ene- 
mies do  not  appear  to  have  been  very  satisfactory  as  far 
as  certainty  was  concerned  in  the  knowledge  that  Jesus 
was  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham,  the  King  of 
Israel.  Is  it  presumption  to  raise  the  question  whether 
the  results  of  critical  methods  are  likely  to  prove  more 
satisfactory  in  our  day  than  in  the  days  of  Caiaphas,  and 
Herod,  and  Pilate,  when  applied  to  these  records  which 
claim  to  be  of  God,  to  reveal  the  Son  of  God,  to  give  full 
assurance  of  their  own  truth  to  those  who  will  believe 
them,  but  to  be  a  sealed  book  to  mere  human  wisdom 
and  understanding?  May  not  human  principles  and 
systems  of  ascertaining  and  handling  divine  truth  be 
judged  by  their  fruits?  If  God  has  been  willing  for  cen- 
turies to  rest  his  case  on  the  results  produced  by  his 
Spirit  in  all  those  who  will  pursue  his  way  of  arriving  at 
a  certainty  of  the  truth  in  Jesus,  why  should  not  that  be 
a  good  test  to  apply  to  the  scientific  or  critical  method? 
Or,  is  historical  criticism  per  se  above  all  criticism  ?  The 
impression   prevails  too  largely  in   religious   circles  that 


266  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  claims  of  the  scientific  method  for  investigating 
divine  truth  are  simply  paramount.  Scientific  principles 
and  scientific  methods  are  the  great  Diana  of  the  present 
generation.  And  the  idea  is  carefully  cherished  and 
boldly  advocated  that  unless  all  the  demands  of  scientific 
criticism  can  be  fully  met  in  a  scientific  way  our  faith  in 
these  records  must  be  greatly  weakened.  In  other  words, 
believers  are  given  to  understand — and  too  many  are 
inclined  to  become  frightened  at  it — that  unless  their 
position  receives  the  unqualified  indorsement  of  scien- 
tific criticism  it  must  be  considered  simply  untenable. 
All  of  which  sounds  very  formidable,  but  is  in  reality 
sublimely  ridiculous.  There  would  be  more  sense  in 
talking  about  the  untenableness  of  the  position  of  the 
sun  in  the  solar  system  unless  he  receive  the  full  indorse- 
ment of  all  the  royal  and  imperial  societies  of  astronomers. 
Why  cannot  believers  judge  the  tree  by  its  fruit? 
Why  do  they  not  rightly  estimate  the  true  value  of  the 
scientific  methods  of  handling  divine  truth  from  the 
results  of  their  application  under  the  most  favorable  cir- 
cumstances ?  Look  at  Germany,  the  land  of  Luther  and 
the  Reformation.  German  theology  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury started  out,  both  feet  planted  firmly  on  the  open 
Bible  as  the  word  of  God.  The  revival  of  classical  learn- 
ing had  furnished  the  tools  for  the  work  of  scientific 
operation  on  that  word.  No  one  could  ever  think  of 
asking  for  greater  liberty  in  the  application  of  scientific 
principles  upon  the  word  on  the  part  of  theological 
teachers.  No  one  doubts  that  this  freedom  was  used  to 
the  fullest  extent.  For  fully  two  centuries  the  word  of 
God  there  has  been  subjected,  without  any  restraint,  to 
all  the  tests  imaginable  of  theological  and  philosophical 
anatomy  and  analysis.  These  gospel  records,  in  particu- 
lar, have  been  plucked  into  shreds,  pulverized  in  mortars, 
put  into  the  crucibles,  treated  with  acids,  without  let  or 


THE   GOSPELS.  267 

hindrance.  And  what  liave  been  the  results  from  this 
almost  ideal  development  of  scientific  theology  for  the 
once  warm  and  flourishing  religious  life  of  the  Father- 
land ?  Our  question  is  not  after  the  fate  of  these  gos- 
pels. We  know,  and  never  doubted,  that  these  records 
have  come  out  of  that  burning  fiery  furnace,  "  not  a 
hair  of  their  head  singed,  nor  the  smell  of  fire  passed  on 
them."  But  what  has  become  of  the  German  pulpit, 
what  of  the  spirituality  of  the  Churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion? For  the  most  part  scorched,  blasted,  seared,  and 
shriveled.  The  flame  of  the  fire  of  that  overheated  fur- 
nace slew  those  men  that  took  up  Shadrach,  Meshach, 
and  Abednego. 

And  what  are  we  doing  just  now  for  the  American 
Churches?  We  are  eagerly  and  diligently  adjusting  and 
attaching  a  thousand  and  one  ends  of  graduated  theolog- 
ical hose  to  that  great  tank  filled  with  the  ultra-refined 
chemicals  of  German  theological  scholarship  and  scientific 
criticism  ;  and  through  inch  nozzles  and  half-inch  nozzles 
and  quarter-inch  nozzles  and  nozzlets  we  are  preparing 
to  treat  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Churches  of  our  land  to 
a  most  generous  sprinkling  with  that  burning,  fiery  liquid. 
Do  we  realize  what  we  are  doing?  Do  you  feel  like  sing- 
ing, "  What  shall  the  harvest  be  ?  "  Ah,  it  may  be  that  in 
the  providence  of  God  this  will  prove  to  be  only  one  of 
those  unquenchable  fires  kindled  by  God's  anger  against 
an  adulterous  and  worldly-minded  Church,  by  which  the 
wood,  hay,  and  stubble  of  her  proud  and  boasted  intel- 
lectual, aesthetical,  and  philosophical  achievements  are 
to  be  consumed,  and  the  genuine  gold,  silver,  and 
precious  stone,  fit  for  the  King's  holy  temple,  are  to 
be  revealed  by  fire.  If  so  it  is  well.  Do  you  still  ask. 
Are  we,  then,  afraid  of  historical  criticism  ?  You  have 
our  answer. 

Do  you  ask,  again,  Would  yon,  then,  discourage  or  dis- 


268  AXTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

countenance  all  scientific  and  philosophical  treatment  of 
divine  truth  ?  We  would  no  more  think  of  doing  that 
than  of  advocating  the  abolition  of  all  existing  forms  of 
human  government.  We  consider  the  absolutism  of  the 
Russian  czar  or  the  Turkish  sultan  vas'.ly  better  than 
anarchy.  But  neither  would  we  run  for  a  political  office 
nor  allow  a  political  office  to  run  after  us.  For,  after  all, 
the  chief  value  of  all  existing  forms  of  government  con- 
sists in  the  fact  that  they  furnish  indisputable  evidence 
of  their  utter  incompetency  to  cure  the  diseased  body  of 
human  society  and  to  find  a  satisfactory  and  peace-giving 
solution  for  the  ever-burning  questions  of  the  age.  Just 
so,  we  believe  that  the  value  of  theological  science  has 
been  and  is  to-day  greatly  overestimated.  Its  value, 
likewise,  consists  chiefly  in  the  fact  that  it  furnishes  most 
palpable  evidence  of  the  complete  and  irremediable  im- 
potency  of  the  human  mind,  however  well  trained,  not 
only  to  discover  any  divine  truth  whatsoever  by  its 
own  exertions,  but  also  to  apprehend  revealed  truth  cor- 
rectly and  to  reproduce  it  harmoniously  for  the  upbuild- 
ing of  the  true  body  of  Christ,  the  one  blood-bought 
Church.  Theological  science  may  and  does  keep  the 
bodies  of  professing  Christians,  which  in  their  organized 
capacity  are  its  own  children,  from  complete  disintegra- 
tion and  corruption,  just  as  human  governments  do  the 
body  politic.  But  the  most  perfect  and  complete  system 
of  scientific  theology  ever  devised  would  be  just  as  effect- 
ive for  revealing  and  guiding  into  the  unspeakably  glorious 
and  precious  fellowship  with  Christ  and  his  holy  temple, 
his  bride,  his  fullness,  the  Church,  as  the  most  faultless 
system  of  political  economics  would  be  for  bringing  about 
a  kingdom  of  righteousness  and  peace,  of  general  con- 
tentment and  happiness,  within  the  borders  of  this  or 
any  other  country.  No  better  commentary  has  ever 
been    written    than    the    history    of    theological    science 


THE   GOSPELS.  269 

upon  the  words  of  Jesus  recorded  in  these  gospels:  "I 
thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent, 
and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even  so.  Father ; 
for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight." 
18 


270  AXTI-IIIGIIER   CRITICISM. 


THE  GOSPELS. 


BY  PROFESSOR  ERNST  F.  STROETER,  PH.D., 

Denver  University. 


II. 

Our  second  proposition  is  :  The  divine  estimate  of 
the  value  of  historical  evidence  for  the  genuineness, 
exact  age,  and  authenticity  of  these  gospel  records  is 
evidently  very  much  lower  than  that  of  man  ;  especially, 
man  of  the  genus  theologian,  and  more  particularly  of 
the  species  higher  critic.  To  judge  from  the  extent, 
magnitude,  and  thoroughness  of  the  critical  investiga- 
tions set  on  foot  in  the  domain  of  secular  and  sacred 
history,  of  archaeology,  of  comparative  philology,  of  geog- 
raphy, of  ethnology,  and  other  branches  of  science,  all 
for  the  purpose  of  clearing  up  every  detail  of  the  parent- 
age, the  conception,  the  birth,  the  native  place,  the  home 
surroundings,  the  size,  the  stature,  the  complexion,  the 
age,  the  experiences,  and  transformations  of  these  four 
gospels,  considered  merely  as  human  literary  produc- 
tions, one  might  think  that  the  very  life  and  peace  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  depended  on  the  completeness  of  the 
returns  obtainable  in  these  directions.  We  have  at- 
tempted to  show,  in  our  first  paper,  how  wide  of  the 
mark  such  a  conclusion  would  be.  We  pointed  out  the 
eternal  contrast  between  the  absolutely  infallible,  divine 
way  of  producing  and  maintaining  soul-satisfying  assur- 
ance of  the  truth  as  revealed  in  the  gospels  in  all  those 
who  believe  them,  and  the  utter  hopelessness  of  merely 
scientific  methods  for  finding  out  and   laying   hold    of 


THE   GOSPELS.  27I 

those  things  to  reveal  which  these  gospel  records  claim 
to  be  given. 

We  admit  that  personal,  unwavering  assurance  of  the 
truths  of  the  Gospel  is  not  the  same  with  proof  that 
these  four  gospels  were  written  by  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John  respectively.  Neither  do  we  claim  that 
God,  in  giving  witness  to  the  believer  that  the  record  of 
his  Son  is  true  at  the  same  time  furnishes  incontestable 
evidence  that  these  gospels  were  all  written  before  the 
close  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Nor  is  it 
contended  that  the  believer  has  the  assurance  that  the 
existing  manuscripts  of  these  gospel  records  are  verbatim 
et  literatim  true  copies  of  the  originals  as  penned  by 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  or  that  he  possesses  in 
his  belief  an  infallible  touchstone  by  which  he  is  able  to 
detect  the  slightest  error  ever  made  by  copyist,  transcriber, 
or  translator  during  more  than  seventeen  centuries.  We 
grant  that  these  are  questions  which  legitimately  will 
find  and  must  find  their  answer  largely  through  the 
application  of  literary  and  historical  criticism.  We  do 
not  deny  the  legitimacy,  from  a  purely  literary  stand- 
point, of  careful  and  critical  research  in  this  direction. 
Nor  can  it  be  truthfully  said,  on  the  whole,  that  believers 
in  these  records  have  been  or  are  unwilling  to  have  the 
history  of  the  origin,  humanly  speaking,  of  these  records 
examined  into  by  reverent  and  thorough  searchers  after 
the  truth. 

God  himself  opens  these  records  by  giving  us,  in  the 
first  chapter  of  the  first  gospel,  the  generation,  or  gene- 
alogy, of  the  Word  made  flesh.  In  thus  presenting  his 
own  dear  Son  to  his  people  as  the  son  of  David  and  the 
son  of  Abraham  God  was  evidently  not  averse  to  having 
the  genealogical  records  of  the  synagogue  searched  by 
any  son  of  Jacob  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
the  claims  of  Jesus  to  the  throne  of  his  father  after  the 


272  ANTI-UIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

flesh,  David,  could  be  based  on  the  historical  fact  of  his 
lineal  descent  from  the  royal  blood  of  the  son  of  Jesse. 
But  it  is  worthy  of  note  right  here  that  God  also,  after 
having  raised  Christ  Jesus  from  the  dead,  and  after  exalt- 
ing him  to  the  right  hand  of  his  majesty  on  high,  and  after 
sending  down  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  his  disciples  at  Jeru- 
salem in  Judea  in  visible  and  audible  manifestation — in 
other  words,  after  having  given  witness  of  an  infinitely 
higher  character  to  the  rightfulness  of  Jesus's  claim  to  the 
Messiahship — God  himself  has  since  allowed  all  other  his- 
torical means  of  verification  in  the  shape  of  Jewish  gene- 
alogies to  perish  from  the  earth,  or  to  be  completely  lost, 
so  far  as  we  know,  with  the  exception  of  that  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  preserved  in  these  gospel  records.  Thus 
the  Jewish  nation,  for  the  final  settlement  of  the  histor- 
ical question  whether  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  and  is  the 
rightful  heir  to  David's  throne,  are  henceforth  confined  to 
the  gospel  records  of  Christ's  generation.  Nor  will  they 
hesitate  to  accept  these  as  the  true  record  of  God  con- 
cerning his  Son  when  once  they  have  beheld  him  whom 
those  (their  fathers)  have  pierced,  and  when  they  shall 
fulfill  his  own  prediction  (Matt,  xxiii,  39),  by  shouting, 
"Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Thus  it  will  be  again,  Scripture  itself  bearing  the  final 
and  crowning  evidence  to  its  own  truth.  For  God  will 
not  give  his  glory  to  another,  nor  will  he  take  witness 
from  man.  So  much  is  clear,  however,  that  it  does  not 
of  itself  prove  a  lack  of  faith,  or  real  unbelief,  if  the 
demand  is  made  of  careful  inquiry  Avhether  the  tradition 
of  the  Church  on  all  these  questions  of  the  dates,  the 
authorship,  and  the  integrity  of  these  gospel  records  is 
trustworthy  or  not.  It  would  be  very  uncharitable  to 
suspect  an  unbeliever  in  every  man  or  scholar  who  de- 
votes time  and  talent  to  a  careful  examination  of  the 
traditions  handed  down  to  us  from    the    fathers.     God 


THE   GOSPELS.  273 

does  not  want  us  to  build  the  structure  of  our  faith  on 
the  mere  traditions  of  men.  The  more  unwiUing  we  are 
to  let  go  of  mere  traditional  belief  the  less  prepared  we 
are,  in  fact,  to  become  assured  of  the  everlasting  rock  of 
the  truth  of  God.  Let  every  man  be  a  liar  and  only  God 
be  true. 

But  just  because  God  did  not  want  the  faith  of  his 
dear  children  to  be  resting  on  mere  human  evidence, 
just  because  God  does  not  want  us  to  be  in  any  wise 
dependent  on  mere  historical  proof,  just  because  he  has 
provided  a  better  witness  for  us  who  believe,  therefore 
God  has  manifested,  in  giving  and  preserving  these  gos- 
pel records  for  our  believing  acceptance,  a  most  remark- 
able degree  of  indifference — we  use  the  term  with  all 
reverence  and  yet  with  great  boldness — toward  that 
entire  class  of  proofs  which  by  all  the  schools  of  criticism 
are  made  so  very  much  of  in  approaching  and  question- 
ing these  records  for  their  credibility,  thus  compelling 
Christian  apologists  to  wade  knee-deep  through  a  kind 
of  argumentation  which  to  a  soul  rooted  and  grounded 
in  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God  must  prove  exceedingly 
wearisome  and  trying.  God  has,  so  it  seems  to  us,  simply 
acted  on  the  principle  laid  down  clearly  in  his  own  word  : 
"  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the  world  to  con- 
found the  wise;  and  God  hath  chosen  the  weak  things  of 
the  world  to  confound  the  things  which  are  mighty."  It 
is  only  just  like  him.  All  who  know  God  from  his  word 
know  better  than  to  expect  him  to  pursue  a  course  in  har- 
mony with,  much  less  in  deference  to,  human  opinion  or 
judgment.  Nor  will  they  expect  God  to  place  the  same 
estimate  upon  human  means  and  instrumentalities  for 
reaching  or  setting  forth  any  truth  connected  with  the 
revelation  of  himself  in  Christ  Jesus  which  men  place 
upon  them.  Moreover,  God  knows  the  deceitfulness  and 
treachery  of  the  heart  of  man  very  much  better  than  man 


2/4  ANTi-Hi(;np:R  criticism. 

ever  cares  to  know  it,  with  all  his  boasted  desire  for 
exact  knowledge.  God  knew  very  well  that  in  the  end 
it  would  make  very  little  if  any  difference  as  to  man's 
willingness  to  accept  his  record  of  his  Son,  whether  the 
historical  and  literary  testimony  to  their  age,  authorship, 
and  integrity  were  absolutely  flawless  and  complete,  or 
less  so.  Consider  the  question  from  either  side,  the 
result  would  be  the  same.  Let  us  suppose,  from  the 
Hterary  standpoint,  that  it  could  be  proven  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  as  solidly  and  indisputably  as  the 
literary  fact  that  James  G.  Blaine  wrote  Tzventy  Years 
in  Congress,  that  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  actu- 
ally did  write  the  gospels  traditionally  ascribed  to  them, 
at  the  time  traditionally  accepted ;  would  that,  think 
you,  prevent  the  critics  from  asking,  "  But  how  do  you 
know  that  Matthew,  for  example,  correctly  reported 
events  in  the  early  life  of  Jesus,  of  which  he  could  not 
have  been  an  eyewitness  ?  "  For  a  fact,  the  advanced 
wing  of  German  critics  simply  cut  out  all  that  is  told  in 
the  gospels  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus,  on  the  plea  that  no 
apostle  could  have  been  an  eyewitness  to  those  things. 
Or,  from  asking,  how  do  we  know  that  Mark  and  Luke, 
not  being  apostles,  did  not  give  a  "  tendencious  coloring  " 
to  the  reports  they  heard  from  others?  Or,  that  John, 
writing  in  old  age,  did  not  seriously  suffer  from  a  failing 
memory  and  drew  largely  upon  his  imagination  for  fill- 
ing in  whole  chapters  of  discourses  and  miraculous  sto- 
ries of  healing  the  blind  and  raising  the  dead? 

Again,  let  us  suppose,  from  the  historical  standpoint, 
that  we  could  establish  with  mathematical  certainty  the 
fact  that  the  gospel  story  given  in  these  four  records  is  his- 
torically exact — that  is,  to  the  last  letter  precisely  the  same 
story  of  Jesus  that  was  preached  and  believed  in  by  the 
first  apostles  and  disciples;  would  that,  do  you  think,  pre- 
vent learned  men,  even  theological  teachers,  from  asking, 


THE   GOSPELS.  275 

"  But  how  do  we  know  that  the  apostles  tliemselves  were 
not  the  subjects  of  hallucinations  engendered  by  enthusi- 
asm and  the  absence  of  critical  acumen,  and  that  what 
they  proclaimed  as  facts,  and  perhaps  themselves  be- 
lieved to  be  facts,  are  largely  visionary  and  mythical?  "  If 
you  think  that  any,  even  the  most  absolutely  impregna- 
ble, defense  of  all  the  historical  approaches  to  these  gos- 
pel records  would  stop  men  from  firing  critical  shafts 
and  arrows  at  these  books,  you  have  a  very  inadequate 
conception  of  the  possibilities  of  higher  or  lower  criti- 
cism. And  we  have  not  insinuated  some  unheard-of 
folly  or  presumption  to  them  ;  but  questions  like  the 
above  have  actually  been  asked  in  our  own  day  by  men 
in  theological  chairs  and  in  evangelical  pulpits,  by  men 
set  to  expound  and  hold  fast  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints. 

Did  God  foresee  this?  We  have  no  doubt  that  he 
did.  We  are,  therefore,  not  in  the  least  surprised,  much 
less  alarmed,  at  the  fact  that  God  has  manifested,  as  we 
said,  such  a  remarkable  degree  of  unconcern  as  to  the 
completeness,  in  human  opinion,  of  the  historical  evi- 
dence sustaining  the  credibility  of  these  gospel  records. 
On  the  contrary,  we  find  in  his  attitude  toward  this  class 
of  evidence  only  additional  confirmation  of  our  belief 
that  this  is  in  truth  not  man's  word,  but  the  very  word 
of  God.  Mere  human  authors  of  a  story  of  such  tremen- 
dous import  would  never  have  been  so  sublimely  indiffer- 
ent to  some,  or,  rather,  to  all,  of  this  historical  evidence. 
Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  facts. 

I.  All  four  of  the  gospels  come  to  us  anonymously  ; 
that  is,  not  one  of  them  contains  an  explicit  statement 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  who  wrote  them.  This  is  dif- 
ferent, as  we  all  know,  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  other 
New  Testament  books.  There  the  names  of  the  human 
penmen  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  do  appeal'. 


276  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Not  SO  here.  God  has  not  deemed  it  best  to  mention 
by  name  any  of  the  evangeHsts  employed  by  him.  Even 
in  the  fourth  gospel  the  name  of  the  inspired  penman, 
though  the  evidence  to  his  identity  with  the  apostle  John 
seems  conclusive,  is  not  once  mentioned. 

2.  There  has  not  been  preserved  to  us  a  single  original 
text  of  any  of  these  gospel  records,  in  fact,  of  any  of  the 
biblical  books.  There  are  whole  museums  full  of  origi- 
nal inscriptions  and  historical,  biographical,  and  ethno- 
logical documents  on  tablets  of  stone,  on  obelisks,  on  tiles 
of  baked  clay,  on  the  cloth  wrappings  of  mummies,  and 
other  substances  that  have  been  kept  in  a  state  of  per- 
fect preservation  for  three  and  four  thousand  years  and 
more.  They  all  contain  records  of  very  interesting 
things  which  sometime  happened  on  the  earth.  But 
they  do  not  begin  to  compare  in  importance  with  the 
history  of  that  one  man  Jesus,  who  lived  in  the  land  of 
Judea  only  a  little  more  than  eighteen  centuries  ago. 
And  yet  we  have  not  a  line  of  original  historical  docu- 
ment concerning  him.  Not  a  single  copy  even  has  thus 
far  been  discovered  with  anything  like  a  certificate  of  an 
apostle  or  an  apostle's  disciple,  or  an  affidavit  given  be- 
fore a  notary  public  or  corresponding  high  Roman  dig- 
nitary, that  such  copy  was  an  absolutely  exact  transcrip- 
tion from  the  original.  There  are  none  accessible  to  us 
that  were  not  made  more  than  two  hundred  years  after 
the  death  of  the  last  of  the  apostles.  More  than  this, 
the  fact  is  undeniable  that  the  original  text  has  been 
marred  and  blemished,  dotted  and  spotted,  with  thou- 
sands of  inaccuracies  and  discrepancies  of  various  kinds. 
While  we  may  be  assured  of  the  perfect  spotlessness  and 
inerrancy  of  the  original  manuscripts  as  given  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  we  are  in  no  position  to  affirm  or  to  prove 
in  a  large  number  of  places  what  the  original  reading 
was.     Probability    of  conjecture   is   the   highest   attain- 


THE   GOSPELS.  2/7 

ment  within  our  reach  on  many  of  these  points.  To  be 
sure — and  we  hasten  to  state  this  lest  any  one  become 
needlessly  alarmed,  for  there  is  no  occasion  for  alarm — 
those  formidable  thousands  of  "  variants,"  that  is,  of 
different  readings  in  the  various  existing  copies  of  the 
biblical  records,  can  be  easily  reduced  to  a  very  few 
hundreds ;  and  these  demonstrably  do  not  seriously 
affect  a  single  essential  doctrine  of  God's  word,  nor  a 
single  feature  in  the  image  of  Christ  as  given  in  these 
gospels.  How  many  hundreds  of  little  pimples  and 
freckles  on  a  baby's  face,  think  you,  would  it  require  be- 
fore its  mother,  w4iile  keeping  it  at  her  bosom,  would  fail 
to  recognize  it  as  her  own  ?  How  many  thousands  to 
seriously  affect  or  to  destroy  its  identity  ? 

3.  No  external  evidence  is  at  our  command  to  silence 
forever  all  possible  doubts  and  questionings  as  to  the 
exact  time  when  these  gospel  records  were  penned. 
There  are  scores  and  hundreds  of  dates,  even  in  very  an- 
cient profane  historyand  literature,  Greek,  Roman,  Persian, 
Assyrian,  Egyptian,  and  other,  which  may  be  regarded  as 
scientifically  established,  or  so  nearly  established  that  no 
honest  critic  w^ould  dare  to  touch  or  shake  them  in  the 
face  of  discovered  evidence.  We  do  not  doubt  for  one 
moment  that  just  as  much,  and  vastly  more,  absolute 
historical  certainty  might  have  been  secured  for  these 
records  providentially  or  miraculousl}'.  Has  the  fact  that 
it  has  not  been  provided  any  significance  or  not?  Are 
we  to  take  the  view  that  God  has  simply  forgotten  or 
failed  to  make  what,  from  the  standpoint  of  human  argu- 
mentation and  demonstration,  would  be  considered  the 
very  best  and  most  complete  provision  for  the  historical 
and  critical  vindication  of  these  gospel  records?  Does 
God  really  care  quite  as  much  to  be  fully  vindicated,  in 
his  wonderful  dealings  in  revelation,  before  the  critical 
eyes  of  scholars  and  philosophers  as  we  sometimes  seem  to 


278  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

think  ?  Are  we  quite  sure  that  our  endeavors,  continued 
for  centuries,  to  meet  and  disarm  hostile  criticism  on 
criticism's  own  field  of  scientific  and  logical  demonstration 
is  not  a  good  deal  like  fighting  Goliath  in  Saul's  armor? 
Are  we  quite  sure  that  we  can  succeed,  nay,  that  we 
ought  to  succeed,  in  our  attempts  to  reduce  to  a  minimum, 
if  not  to  remove  entirely,  the  reproach  cast  upon  us  of  be- 
ing fools  for  believing  as  we  do  and  what  we  do?  Are 
we  quite  sure  that  we  have  fully  apprehended  the  mind  of 
the  Lord  in  thus  assuming  the  defensive  for  the  truthful- 
ness of  his  word  instead  of  simply  and  boldly  proclaim- 
ing it  as  true  and  letting  him  take  care  of  the  demonstra- 
tion with  power?  Are  we  quite  sure  that  the  mere 
intellectual  apprehension  and  consent  to  the  credibility 
of  these  records,  which  is  emphasized  so  greatly  in  pulpit 
and  press  and  platform,  is  not  leading  thousands  into  the 
fatal  error  of  mistaking  this  for  real  heart  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus  the  Lord  ? 

But  let  us  now,  before  we  reflect  further  upon  these 
momentous  questions,  for  a  few  moments  stop  and  con- 
sider, by  way  of  illustration,  the  real  character  of  some 
of  the  evidence  at  our  command  for  beating  off  the  at- 
tacks of  a  destructive  criticism,  evidence  touching  the 
questions  of  authenticity,  dates,  authorship,  etc.,  of  these 
gospel  records.  For  we  would  not,  in  the  present  condi- 
tion of  affairs  in  the  Church  on  earth,  advocate  a  com- 
plete abandonment  of  all  activity  and  preparation  for  a 
vigorous  defense  of  these  outposts,  much  less  a  retreat 
before  the  enemy.  These  questions  have  been  raised, 
the  issue  has  been  made.  It  can  be  met.  Let  it  be  met. 
Many  hearts  and  minds  are  deeply  affected  and  anxiously 
concerned  in  this.  Whether  they  have  reason  to  be 
so  concerned  is  not  a  question  for  us,  but  for  them 
alone,  to  decide.  We  would  not  advocate  any  measure 
which   nii£[ht   cause  one   of  the  weakest   of  the   Lord's 


THE   GOSPELS.  279 

children  to  stumble.  At  the  same  time  the  conviction 
has  grown  upon  us  apace  that  believers  in  God's  truth 
and  word  do  not  realize  as  fully  as  they  ought  the  fact 
that  our  faith  standeth  not  in  the  wisdom  of  man  but  in 
the  power  of  God. 

We  are  surely  pardonable  for  not  attempting  in  this 
limited  space  to  take  you  over  the  entire  battlefield  on 
which  the  fierce  onslaughts  of  criticism  have  been  so 
heroically,  so  nobl)',  and,  as  we  think,  so  successfully  met 
by  earnest  and  scholarly  champions  of  the  truth.  It 
would  have  been  an  impossibility  to  give  in  two  papers 
more  than  a  mere  fraction  of  the  vast  and  varied  material. 
And  though  you  may  not  agree  with  the  general  position 
taken  by  the  writer  of  these  papers  you  will  agree  that 
it  is  quite  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  give  a 
few  illustrations  only  of  what  can  be  proven  on  the  field 
of  gospel  criticism  and  what  cannot  be.  Let  us  take  up 
first  the  question  whether  the  four  gospels  as  we  have 
them  are  essentially  the  same  gospels  that  were  circu- 
lated and  read  in  the  apostolic  Churches  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries.  At  first  sight  it  looks  like  a  gigantic 
undertaking  to  span  the  distance  between  us  and  the 
apostolic  age  by  a  bridge  of  connected  evidence.  But 
of  the  nearly  eighteen  centuries  that  separate  us  from  the 
last  days  of  the  apostle  John  (say  A.  D.  100),  fully  seven- 
teen can  be  leaped  over  at  one  jump.  For  it  is  conceded 
on  recognized  historical  evidence  that  at  the  close  of  the 
second  century  our  present  four  gospels,  and  only  these 
four,  were  received  generally  as  authentic  by  the  Chris- 
tian Churches  throughout  the  various  provinces  of  the 
Roman  empire;  that  they  were  regarded  as  "  sacred  Scrip- 
tures," and  their  human  authorship  universally  ascribed  to 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  Li  other  words,  it  is 
conceded  that  for  seventeen  hundred  years  back  these 
gospels  have    unbrokenly  occupied   the  position   in  the 


28o  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Christian  Church  which  they  now  hold.  In  the  year 
A.  D.  185,  just  seventeen  hundred  and  eight  years 
ago,  Irenaeus,  a  Christian  bishop  at  Lyons,  in  the 
south  of  France,  wrote  of  the  four  gospels  in  a  manner 
which  leaves  but  one  natural  conclusion,  namely,  that  our 
gospels  had  then  been  in  long  and  general  use.  They 
were  esteemed  so  highly  that  a  mystical  meaning  even 
was  given  to  their  number,  four.  Back  of  this  date, 
A.  D.  185,  the  historical  and  literary  evidence  becomes 
rather  scant,  for  the  very  good  reason,  in  the  first  place, 
that  but  little  Christian  literature  could  possibly  have 
existed,  and  then  that  very  little  of  that  little  survived 
the  hurricanes  of  persecution.  But  we  remember  that 
A.  D.  185  is  only  eighty-five  years  later  than  the  death 
of  the  apostle  John.  This  reduces  the  time  to  be 
spanned  between  our  present  gospels  and  those  extant 
in  John's  own  day  to  only  eighty-five  years.  This  is  not 
so  formidable.  For  let  us  understand  what  a  doubt  or 
denial  of  the  authenticity  of  our  gospels  now  means.  It 
means  not  less  than  the  assumption  that  the  genuine  and 
authentic  gospel  records  which  did  exist  and  circulate  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles  not  only  disappeared,  but  were 
supplanted  by  a  set  of  spurious  gospels  by  unknown  and 
nonapostolical  authors,  who  foisted  apostolic  names  onto 
their  forgeries,  and  that  these  forgeries  came  into  such 
universal  favor  that  they  were  generally  received  in  Ital}% 
Africa,  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and  Gaul,  and  all  this  within 
a  period  of  eighty-five  years.  We  should  like  very  much 
to  see  a  similar  experiment  tried  by  the  higher  critics. 
Let  them  take  advantage  of  the  high  tide  of  popular 
favor  in  which  all  the  claims  of  German  scholarship  are 
now  held.  Let  them  boldly  announce  that  the  story  of  the 
discovery  of  America  by  Columbus  is  spurious,  and  that 
not  Columbus,  but  the  German  Guttenberg,  discovered 
America  and  set  up  the  first  printing  press  on  this  conti- 


THE    GOSPELS.  •  28l 

nent.  Such  a  "  tendencious  "  story  ought  to  prove  im- 
mensely popular  with  the  German  element  not  only,  but 
specially  with  the  newspaper  press.  And  possibly  not  a 
few  native  Americans  might,  from  a  dislike  of  Italian 
immigration,  prefer  to  have  their  country  discovered  by  a 
German  rather  than  by  a  Genoese.  We  ask.  Is  it  conceiv- 
able that  such  a  substitution  of  spurious  and  "tenden- 
cious "  gospel  records  in  the  place  of  authentic  and  genu- 
ine ones  could  have  taken  place,  and  a  man,  for  example, 
in  Irenaeus's  position  remain  ignorant  of  it,  a  man  who 
is  known  to  have  personally  met  and  conversed  with 
Polycarp,  who,  in  turn,  was  a  disciple  of  the  apostle  John 
himself? 

But  there  are  a  few  more  pretty  solid  planks  to  bridge 
over  that  gap  of  eighty-five. years.  In  A.  D.  150  we  have 
testimony  from  Justin  Martyr  that  when  Christians  met 
for  worship  on  the  Lord's  day  it  was  customary  to  read 
what  he  calls  "  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles,  drawn  up  by 
the  apostles  and  those  who  followed  them,  which  also 
were  called  gospels."  This  description  fits  exactly  to 
the  traditional  authorship  of  our  four  gospels,  two  of 
them  being  assigned  to  apostles  and  two  to  those  who  fol- 
lowed them.  From  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  who, 
not  addressing  himself  to  Christian  readers,  does  not 
quote  verbally,  but  as  a  man  would  freely  from  memory, 
a  story  of  Christ  could  be  compiled  which  would  present 
essentially  the  same  features  as  that  contained  in  our 
gospels.  It  is  true  that  the  inference  drawn  from  what 
has  been  called  Justin's  quotations  is  stoutly  denied  by 
some  critics.  They  insist  that  Justin  did  not  give  any 
quotations  at  all  of  our  gospels,  and  that  consequently 
his  writings  cannot  be  brought  in  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence in  his  day  of  our  gospels  in  their  present  form. 
You  see,  what  to  some  appears  pretty  conclusive  evi- 
dence does  not  make  the  same  impression  on  others. 


282  ANTI-IIIGIIER    CRITICISM. 

Another  plank:  Papias  was  bishop  at  Hieropolis  in 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  We  have  evidence 
that  he  was  personally  acquainted  and  had  conversed 
with  men  who  knew  the  apostles.  He  had  even  known 
two  men  of  great  old  age  who  had  been  immediate  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This  Papias  published  an  Ex- 
position of  Oracles  of  the  Lord  about  A.  D.  135,  that  is, 
within  thirty-five  years  only  of  the  apostle  John's  death. 
He  wrote,  unmistakably,  of  gospels  then  in  common  use. 
He,  by  the  way,  bears  definite  witness  to  the  authorship 
of  Matthew  and  Mark  for  the  first  two  gospels.  Is  it  at 
all  likely  that  a  man  removed  but  one  generation  from 
the  apostles  themselves,  and  linked  with  them  through 
living  witnesses  that  had  known  and  communed  with 
them,  should  have  been  made  to  believe  that  the  first 
gospel  was  written  by  Matthew  if  this  apostle  in  reality 
never  wrote  it?  But  the  question  is  asked,  Are  our 
gospels  by  Matthew  and  Mark  the  same  as  those  that 
Papias  treats  of?  To  us  the  chain  of  evidence  appears 
complete.  We  found  our  gospels  generally  received  by 
the  Churches  as  sacred  Scriptures  in  A.  D.  185.  We  have 
the  witness  of  Justin  Martyr  in  A.  D.  150  that  these 
same  gospels  were  read  in  the  churches,  just  as  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures  were  read  in  the  synagogues.  Fifteen 
years  before  that  (A.  D.  135)  we  find  at  least  two  of  these 
gospels  received  as  trustworthy  by  men  who  had  known 
disciples  of  the  Lord,  and  by  two  who  had  known  Christ 
himself.* 

Let  us  now  take  up  another  illustration  of  the  relative 
value  of  the  evidence  arrayed  in  defense  against  the  at- 
tacks of  a  destructive  criticism  upon  these  gospel  records. 
Some  of  the  heaviest  ordnance  of  the  critical  army  has 
been   directed  against  John's  authorship   of  the    fourth 

*  In  the  groupings  of  this  argument  we  have  followed  largely  R.  W. 
Dale's  very  able  book,   The  Living  Christ  and  the  Four  Gospels. 


THE   GOSPELS.  283 

gospel.  We  choose  this  for  a  second  illustration,  not  only 
because  it  takes  us,  as  it  were,  into  the  thickest  and  hot- 
test of  the  fight,  but  especially  because  we,  as  believers, 
are  convinced  that  we  have  in  the  fourth  gospel  itself 
the  most  conclusive  internal  evidence  of  its  Johannean 
authorship,  and  because  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  he  does 
not  indeed  mention  John's  name  once  as  the  writer  of 
that  book,  does  make  mention  of  the  author  in  a  most 
peculiar  and  significant  way,  concealing  and  yet  reveal- 
ing his  identity.  Thus  the  question  of  John's  authorship 
for  this  gospel  becomes  more  than  a  mere  question  of 
the  correctness  of  human  tradition. 

The  external  evidence  brought  forward  thus  far  in  sup- 
port of  the  Johannean  authorship  is,  perhaps,  on  the 
whole  not  quite  so  strong  and  satisfactory  as  that  for 
the  authenticity  of  the  synoptist  gospels.  But  there  is, 
in  the  case  of  the  fourth  gospel,  as  indicated,  considerable 
internal  evidence — that  is,  evidence  taken  from  the  book 
itself — pointing  to  John  as  its  human  author,  evidence 
which  is  not  present  in  the  case  of  the  other  three  ;  and 
this  we  shall  briefly  consider.* 

This  evidence  is  grouped  in  three  concentric  circles : 
the  first  and  widest,  to  show  that  the  fourth  gospel  was 
written  by  a  Jew ;  the  second,  that  it  was  written  by 
an  eyewitness;  the  third  and  innermost,  that  it  must 
have  been  written  by  the  apostle  John,  who  was  both 
Jew  and  eyewitness. 

Within  the  first  circle  we  find  very  full  and  detailed  evi- 
dence, from  the  Greek  style  in  which  this  gospel  appears 
to  be  written,  that  its  writer  must  have  been  a  Jew,  whose 
thinking  for  a  lifetime  was  in  Hebrew.  We  will  pass  this 
by  as  appreciable  only  to  Greek  and  Hebrew  scholars. 

*  We  shall  here  follow  in  the  main  the  very  excellent  presentation  by  Light- 
foot  of  the  Internal  Evidence  for  tJie  Aulhenlicity  and  Genuineness  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel. 


284  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  second  circle  contains  very  remarkable  and,  to  us, 
very  conclusive  evidence  that  the  fourth  gospel  must 
have  been  written  either  by  an  eyewitness  or  by  the 
most  skillful  and  consummate  romancer  the  world  ever 
saw.  Of  the  abundant  material  here  collected,  we  bring 
out  but  a  few  samples.  The  minuteness  of  detail  in  this 
gospel,  as  Lightfoot  truly  remarks,  is  far  greater  and 
more  remarkable  even  than  in  the  three  synoptists. 
This  comes  out  most  strikingly  in  various  purely  inciden- 
tal ways.  When  mention  is  made  in  the  gospels,  for  ex- 
ample, of  the  various  Jewish  sects  and  the  Levitical 
hierarchy,  the  usual  combination  in  the  three  synoptists 
is  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  But  in  the  fourth  gospel 
the  Sadducees  are  not  once  mentioned.  Here  the  con- 
nection is  this  :  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees.  How 
is  this  peculiar  omission  and  difference  to  be  explained? 
By  the  simple  fact  that  at  that  time  the  high  priests  be- 
longed to  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees.  Could  a  forger 
have  produced  to  such  perfection  what  to  a  contempo- 
rary and  eyewitness  was  perfectly  natural  ? 

More  striking  still  is  the  casual  mention  of  an  histor- 
ical detail  in  John  ii,  20:  "  Forty  and  six  years  was  this 
temple  in  building."  This  time  had  actually  elapsed  be- 
tween the  commencement  of  Herod's  building  and  that 
point  in  Christ's  ministry.  Suppose  this  gospel  was,  as 
the  negative  critics  insist,  composed  anywhere  in  or  after 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  eighty  or  more  years 
after  the  complete  demolition  of  that  temple,  what  strong 
improbabilities  it  involves !  A  writer,  a  forger,  in  or- 
der to  bring  in  that  historical  detail  of  the  forty-six 
years,  must  have  gone  to  a  tremendous  amount  of  labori- 
ous and  difficult  research  to  get  his  dates.  The  only 
remaining  available  source  after  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  state  and  sanctuary  for  anything  concerning  that 
temple    was  Josephus.     But  he  does  not  give  the  date 


THE   GOSPELS.  285 

of  the  beginning  of  Herod's  temple  building.  He  must, 
likewise,  have  gone  through  a  most  careful  and  critical 
examination  of  the  chronology  of  Christ's  ministry  and 
of  gospel  history,  which  lay  more  than  a  hundred  years 
back  of  his  time.  And  all  this  trouble  only  just  to  drop 
in  this  little  notice,  which  has  no  bearing  on  his  story, 
does  not  serve  any  "  tendencious  "  theological  purpose, 
proves  nothing,  denies  nothing,  and  leads  to  nothing. 
And  all  this  shrewdness  and  inventive  genius  must  have 
been  displayed  by  a  supposed  author  in  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  an  age  which,  according  to  the  same 
higher  critics,  perpetrated  the  most  crude  and  bungling 
forgeries,  and  is  denounced  unsparingly  as  utterly  inca- 
pable of  criticism. 

The  arguments  in  the  third  and  innermost  circle  in 
support  of  John's  authorship  run  like  this:  Negatively, 
it  is  argued  that  on  the  supposition  of  forgery  it  would 
have  been  of  vital  moment  that  the  name  of  the  pre- 
tended apostolical  author  should  appear  in  the  book  to 
give  it  prestige.  The  omission  of  the  name  is  wholly 
unlike  the  proceeding  of  a  forger. 

Positively,  we  find  that  a  certain  disciple  is  mentioned 
in  th"^  opening  chapter,  and  again  in  the  closing  scenes ; 
at  length  we  read,  "This  is  the  disciple  which  testifieth 
of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things."  In  full  accord 
with  this  statement  we  find  that  those  scenes  in  which 
that  disciple  is  recorded  as  taking  part  are  related  with 
peculiar  minuteness  and  vividness  of  detail.  The  ques- 
tion, however,  still  remains.  Who  is  this  unnamed  dis- 
ciple? We  arrive  at  identification  first  by  a  process  of 
exhaustion.  It  is  quite  safe  to  assume,  by  comparing 
the  accounts  in  the  other  gospels,  that  this  disciple  was 
of  the  inner  circle,  Peter,  James,  and  John.  He  cannot 
have  been  Peter,  because  we  find  Peter  by  the  side  of 
this  anonymous  disciple  in  the  closing  scenes.  James 
10 


286  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

seems  excluded,  likewise,  for  James  died  a  martyr  as 
early  as  A.  D.  44,  years  before  this  gospel,  possibly,  was 
written.  This  leaves  only  John.  With  this  result  all 
the  particulars  agree.  He  is  called  among  the  earlier 
disciples  ;  at  the  close  we  find  him  especially  associated 
with  Peter.  This  position  suits  no  one  of  the  apostles 
better  than  John,  who,  in  the  early  days  of  the  Church, 
is  co-champion  of  the  faith  with  Peter.  Moreover,  unless 
this  beloved  but  unnamed  disciple  is  really  John,  that 
apostle  who,  according  to  other  historical  evidence,  was 
so  prominent  among  the  pillars  of  the  early  Church  does 
not  once  appear  in  the  fourth  gospel — a  supposition 
most  strange  and  unaccountable  in  the  highest  degree. 
Finall}-,  that  earlier  John,  the  forerunner  of  the  Lord,  is 
in  the  other  evangelists  generally  distinguished  by  the 
surname  "  the  Baptist."  In  this  gospel  alone  he  is 
never  so  called.  The  only  rational  explanation  for  this 
seems  to  be  that  the  apostle  John  did  not  stand  before 
the  mind  of  the  writer  of  this  gospel  in  a  line  with  John 
the  Baptist  as  a  third  person  spoken  of;  hence  no  occa- 
sion for  distinguishing  the  latter  by  any  surname  from 
John  the  writer. 

This  exhibit  of  the  various  kinds  of  evidence  used  in 
refuting  the  aspersions  of  a  destructive  criticism  is  quite 
sufficient  for  our  present  purpose.  All  who  have  gone 
over  this  ground  will  agree,  we  are  sure,  that  these  are 
fair  specimens  of  our  present  apparatus  to  defend  the  his- 
torical and  literary  trustworthiness  of  our  gospel  records. 
And  now  there  remains  to  be  said  three  things  concern- 
ing this  evidence: 

First  is  the  confident  claim  that  to  any  one  whose 
heart  and  mind  are  at  all  inclined  to  a  belief  in  the 
gospels  this  evidence  is,  or  ought  to  be,  quite  conclusive 
and  sufficient  to  lend  to  the  position  taken  a  very  high, 
if  not  the  highest,  degree  of  probability.     Compared  with 


THE   GOSPELS.  28/ 

the  historical  and  literary  proof,  for  example,  for  the 
genuineness  of  almost  all  the  classical  writings  of  Greek 
and  Roman  authors,  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  our  four  gospels  is  vastly  superior,  both 
in  character  and  volume. 

Second  is  the  candid  admission  that  this  evidence, 
while  to  a  willing  and  open  mind  quite  satisfactory  and 
conclusive,  is  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  exclude  for- 
ever all  possible  doubt  and  uncertainty  from  a  critical 
and  scientific  standpoint.  It  is  altogether  neither  com- 
plete nor  incontestable  nor  all-sufficient.  Its  convinc- 
ing power  is  largely  determined  by  the  subjective  attitude 
of  the  mind  to  which  it  is  presented.  To  illustrate  the 
last  mentioned  point  of  insufficiency,  take,  for  example, 
the  evidence  to  support  the  claim  that  the  gospels  were 
written  by  eyewitnesses,  which,  in  the  case  of  the  fourth 
gospel  especially,  amounts  almost  to  logical  demonstra- 
tion. What  would  be  proven  even  if  we  could  establish 
every  evangelist  an  eyewitness?  Can  we  thereby  save 
the  story  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus  from  the  critic's  knife  ? 
Can  we  meet  the  plausible  objection  that  almost  uni- 
formly men's  memories  fail  them  in  later  years  ?  We  are, 
after  all,  bound  to  fall  back  on  the  only  reliable  proof  of 
the  absolute  infallibility  of  these  penmen,  namely,  on  the 
promise  of  the  Lord,  "But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you  "  (John 
xiv,  26).  What  we  want  is  not  eyewitnesses  merely,  un- 
less we  are  assured  that  they  did  not  have  to  depend  on 
their  own  eyes  and  memory  alone  for  what  they  wrote 
down.  Can  we  establish  infallible,  inspired  eyewitnesses 
by  the  highest  grade  of  historical  evidence?  Never.  We 
mu'^t  fall  back  on  the  divine  word  itself  for  the  one  essen- 
tial thing. 


2^8  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Third  is  the  grave  cluirge  that  by  far  the  greater  and 
most  valuable  (from  a  scientific  standpoint)  part  of  all 
this  evidence  is  accessible  only  to  scholars  and  men  of 
high  intellectual  culture.  This,  in  the  eyes  of  the  natural 
man,  is  probably  its  highest  commendation.  For  it  is 
extremely  gratifying  to  the  pride  of  man  to  think  him- 
self capable  and  qualified  to  do  the  word  of  God  a  very 
great  service  by  defending  it  intellectually  and  scientific- 
ally against  hostile  attacks.  To  the  spiritual  man,  how- 
ever, that  fact  is  quite  enough  to  justify  the  verdict, 
"Weighed  in  the  balances,  and  found  wanting."  He  will 
never  admit  that  those  who  have  not  learning  must  wait 
until  the  battle  of  the  scholars  has  been  decided  before 
they  can  be  fully  assured  of  the  credibility  of  these  records. 
He  will  never  admit  that  the  truthfulness  of  God's  word 
depends,  even  in  the  slightest  degree,  on  the  outcome  of 
human  investigations.  He  is  absolutely  and  forever  as- 
sured that  our  faith  standeth  not  in  the  wisdom  of  man 
but  in  the  power  of  God. 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  to  these  things?  Let  us  see. 
Here  is  the  Word  of  God  made  flesh.  The  Father  sent 
him  into  the  world.  He  was  holy,  blameless,  undefiled. 
Was  he  above  human  criticism  ?  What  was  his  appear- 
ance ?  W^e  must  rid  ourselves  of  the  ideally  beautiful 
representations  of  Jesus,  a  golden  halo  around  his  head, 
majestic  beauty  on  his  brow,  such  as  painters  have 
created  out  of  their  own  fancy,  to  make  him  agreeable 
to  the  aesthetic  taste  of  man.  One  speaks  of  him  through 
the  Spirit  of  God,  "  He  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness;  and 
when  we  see  him,  there  is  no  beauty  that  we  should  desire 
him."  What  was  his  education,  general  culture,  and  so- 
cial standing?  He  never  had  what  is  called  a  liberal 
education,  never  went  to  college,  never  joined  a  Chautau- 
qua circle,  never  wrote  a  book  nor  a  magazine  article, 
never    traveled  in    foreign  countries,   except    when    his 


THE   GOSPELS.  289 

mother  carried  him  to  Egypt  and  back  as  a  babe  ;  his 
mental  and  social  horizon  limited  by  that  narrow  little 
strip  of  land,  Judea,  and  by  the  narrower  social  condi- 
tions of  a  petty  Jewish  tradesman.  Ah,  well,  wait,  wait ! 
Soon  another  shall  appear,  who  comesr  in  his  own  name. 
He  will  be  the  very  cynosure  of  scientific,  intellectual, 
literary,  and  aesthetic  culture  and  refinement,  the  culmi- 
nation of  human  progress  and  development.  Him  they 
will  hear.  Was  not  the  word  Incarnate  made  rejectable, 
O,  so  easily  rejectable,  by  Him  who  sent  him  ? 

Again,  look  at  his  body,  the  Church,  the  continuation 
of  that  great  mystery  of  godliness,  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  Christ  in  us  and  we  in  him.  Here  she  is,  in  the 
world,  who  by  faith  knows  herself  to  be  the  chosen  and 
blood-bought  bride  of  God's  own  dear  Son,  seated  with 
him  in  the  heavenly  places,  the  very  fullness  of  him  that 
filleth  all  and  in  all,  and  here  she  is,  absolutely  powerless 
to  make  her  true  character  known  to  the  world  ;  all  at- 
tempts at  self-revelation  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  all 
endeavors  to  make  the  world  recognize  and  acknowledge 
her  standing,  her  dignity,  her  glory,  invariably  resulting 
in  the  most  frightful  caricatures  and  producing  the  most 
wretched  corruptions  in  the  Church. 

Did  the  world,  nay,  could  the  world  see  all  there  was 
of  grace  and  truth  even  in  the  mortal  Christ  ?  We  know 
it  did  not.  We  know  it  could  not.  We  also  know  the 
world  never  yet  has  had  a  glimpse  even  of  the  risen  and 
glorified  Christ. 

Did  the  world,  nay,  can  the  world  ever  see  that  pre- 
cious pearl,  the  true  Church,  as  we  know  her  by  the 
word  and  by  the  Spirit  ?     Never  yet. 

Do  we  think  that  God's  written  w^ord  enjoys  the  dis- 
tinction above  his  own  dear  Son,  and  above  the  Son's 
own  chosen  spouse,  to  be  more  easily  recognizable  by 
the  world  "^     Do  we  think  it  is  divinelv  intended  to  be 


290  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

less  rejectable  ?  Do  we  imagine  it  an  easier  task  to  dem- 
onstrate to  the  gaze  of  the  world  the  beauties  and  the 
charms,  the  power  and  the  glory,  of  the  God-breathed 
Scriptures,  where  it  sees  nothing  but  blemishes  and  de- 
fects, weakness  and  foolishness?  Have  we  not  "this 
treasure  also  in  earthen  vessels,  that  the  excellency  of 
the  power  may  be  of  God,  and  not  of  us?"  Yea,  verily. 
"  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the  world  to  con- 
found the  wise ;  and  God  hath  chosen  the  weak  things 
of  the  world  to  confound  the  things  which  are  mighty ; 
and  base  things  of  the  world,  and  things  which  are 
despised,  hath  God  chosen,  yea,  and  things  which  are 
not,  to  bring  to  naught  things  that  are  :  that  no  flesh 
should  glory  in  his  presence."     Amen. 


THE   COUNCIL   IX   JERUSALEM.  29I 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  JERUSALEM. 

(Acts  xv.) 


BY  PROFESSOR  JAMES  M.  STIFLER,  D.D., 
Crozer   Theological  Seminary. 

It  is  necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  council  in 
Jerusalem  that  the  course  of  events  from  the  beginning 
be  considered.  The  first  chapter  of  Acts  is  preliminary. 
It  shows  us  a  small  company  of  Jews  not  yet  delivered 
from  the  carnal  hope  of  Israel.  They  say,  "  Wilt  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?  "  They  are 
ignorant  of  Christ's  design  of  mercy  for  the  world,  but 
believe  in  him  without  question,  and  so  pray  fully  await 
in  the  upper  room  for  the  promise  of  the  Father.  The 
second  chapter  (1-41)  shows  how  marvelously  that 
promise  was  fulfilled.  The  wonders  that  attended  the 
fulfillment,  and  the  character  of  the  speech  made  by  Peter, 
show  that  here  is  something  new  in  the  history  of  God's 
people.  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  a  new,  a  mighty,  a 
holy  energy.  It  did  not  for  one  minute  take  the  thou- 
sands of  believers  out  of  Judaism,  but  it  drew  them  to- 
gether in  a  community  distinctly  new.  This  newness  is 
seen  in  three  particulars:  First,  the  community  accepts 
the  fishermen  as  teachers,  to  the  rejection  of  the  recog- 
nized instructors  in  Israel.  Secondly,  the  community- 
accepts  new  ordinances,  and,  thirdly,  it  parts  with  its 
possessions.  The  latter  is  most  striking.  How  long  this 
community  existed  undisturbed,  a  body  of  believing 
Jews  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  how  long  they  remained 
unmolested  among  their  unbelieving  brethren,  can  only 


292  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

be  guessed.  A  miracle  (chapters  iii,  iv)  wrought  within 
the  precincts  of  the  temple  called  the  attention  of  the  au- 
thorities to  the  believers,  and  the  result  is  that  the  apos- 
tles are  forbidden  to  preach.  They  do  not  obey  the 
injunction  of  the  great  council,  but  declare  the  truth  with 
more  power  than  ever,  and  still  maintain  the  community 
of  goods. 

It  was  but  natural  that  the  new  work  should  not  be 
understood,  not  even  by  those  who  were  in  it  and  of  it. 
It  must  have  been  looked  upon  as  fanatical,  if  not  fantas- 
tic. That  God  dwelt  in  this  community  as  he  had  dwelt 
in  the  tabernacle  of  old  had  not  yet  dawned  upon  any 
but  the  leaders  in  the  new  movement,  and  certainly  not 
on  the  unbelieving  mass  about  them.  But  the  lesson 
was  learned  when  Ananias  and  his  equally  guilty  wife 
were  smitten  down  for  profaning  the  church  (chapter  v). 
**  Great  fear  came  upon  all  the  church,  and  upon  as  many 
as  heard  of  these  things."  They  all  learned  that  the 
"  church,"  now  so  called  for  the  first  time,  was  God's 
house  (Heb.  iii,  6),  and  he  that  entered  it  must  be  holy. 

Up  to  this  time  the  Church  had  not  gone  outside 
of  Jerusalem,  and  the  commission  to  preach  to  all  the 
world  had  not  yet  begun  to  be  obeyed.  The  disturbance 
which  arose  about  the  care  of  the  widows  brought  a 
great  change.  It  put  the  foreign-born  Jews  in  the 
front.  These  were  men  with  broader  views  than  those 
of  Jerusalem.  Stephen  was  the  leader.  His  speech 
(chapter  vii),  which  not  only  strongly  hinted  at  the  re- 
jection of  the  nation  as  such  but  foreshadowed  the 
entrance  of  the  Gentiles,  precipitated  a  persecution  of 
the  Church  that  scattered  it.  They  went  everywhere 
preaching  the  Gospel.  Samaria  is  brought  to  the  Lord. 
The  Ethiopian  is  converted.  And  now  the  Lord  finds 
his  great  leader,  and  Saul  of  Tarsus  believes  that  Jesus  is 
the  Messiah  (chapter  ix).     But  in  all  this  time  and  with 


Tilt:   COUNCIL   IN   JERUSALEM.  293 

all  thi- expansion  no  one  strictly  outside  the  pale  of  Juda- 
ism has  had  the  Gospel  offered  them.  How  was  the  (ros- 
pel  to  break  its  narrow  bounds?  For  the  difference  be- 
tween Jew  and  Gentile  seemed  to  be  an  impassable  gulf. 
To  a  son  of  Israel  the  Gentile's  religion  was  blasphemy, 
his  food  an  abomination,  his  politics  sacrilege.  The  law 
strictly  forbade  all  intercourse  with  him.  How  was  the 
Gospel  to  reach  him  ?  God  taught  Peter  how  on  the 
house  top.  Cornelius  is  admitted,  not  to  the  Church,  but 
to  the  blessing  of  the  Gospel.  Peter  is  taken  sharply  to 
task  for  his  act  (chapter  xi)  when  he  returns  to  Jerusalem, 
but  when  he  rehearses  the  story  of  his  vision  and  subse- 
quent experience  the  home  church  must  admit  that  God 
has  granted  unto  the  Gentiles  repentance  unto  life  (chap- 
ter xi,  1 8).  And  now  we  have  a  strictly  Jewish  church  and 
a  Gentile  church  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  but  no  union, 
no  social  union,  and  none  seemed  possible  yet.  But  about 
this  same  time  away  in  the  north  some  of  the  scattered 
flock  ventured  to  offer  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles  (chap- 
ter xi,  19-21).  The  result  was  a  mighty  Church  of  mixed 
character  sprang  up  in  Antioch,  on  the  Orontes.  This 
is  a  new  thing,  and  hence  here  arose  a  new  name.  The 
disciples  were  first  called  Christians  in  Antioch.  This 
city  became  a  new  center,  and  from  it  there  went  forth 
the  men  who  evangelized  the  world  of  that  day  (Col.  i, 
6,  23). 

We  must  now  have  reached  a  date  twelve  or  fifteen 
years  after  Pentecost.  By  the  direct  impulse  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (chapter  xiii)  the  Gospel  goes  forth  formally  and 
deliberately  to  the  heathen  world.*  In  the  years  A.  D. 
46-48  Paul  and  Barnabas  accomplish  the  first  missionary 
journey  (chapters  xiii,  xiv). 

On  their  return  to  Antioch  the  old  question  comes  up 
in  a  new  form.  It  has  been  freely  admitted  in  the  case 
of  Cornelius  that  God  had  granted  the  Gentiles  life.     But 


294  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

that  was,  in  Peter's  own  language,  a  great  while  ago  (xv,  7). 
A  new  generation  has  sprung  up.  New  conditions  have 
arisen.  Jews  and  Gentiles  have  come  together  as  broth- 
ers, and  on  the  same  social  level  in  the  Church.  Some 
men  felt  tliis  must  not  be.  The  Gentiles  could  be  saved 
but  not  without  becoming  Jews.  They  must  be  circum- 
cised. These  zealots  boldly  taught  this  in  the  church  in 
Antioch.  Of  course  this  would  greatly  disturb  the  peace 
of  the  Church. 

The  question  arose  at  an  opportune  time.  Paul  and 
Barnabas  had  returned  from  the  marvelous  work  which 
God  did  with  them  on  their  first  missionary  tour.  They 
were  in  Antioch  of  S)M-ia,  and  confronted  the  men  who 
had  come  down  from  Judea  to  teach  in  the  Church  that 
circumcision  was  necessary  to  salvation.  That  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  after  long  disputation,  were  unable  to  silence 
these  teachers  shows  that  the  question  at  issue  was 
neither  obvious  nor  absurd.  The  foreign  missionaries 
could  not  silence  their  Judean  opponents.  The  reason 
is  plain,  the  Scriptures  were  all  on  the  side  of  the  lat- 
ter. To  be  sure,  these  Scriptures  everywhere  promised 
salvation  to  the  heathen.  No  one  disputed  this.  But 
these  same  Scriptures  were  just  as  explicit  in  making 
circumcision  the  condition  of  God's  favor  toward  man. 
If  Paul  could  plead  that  Abraham  was  justified  before 
he  was  circumcised  his  antagonist  could  say  yes,  but 
after  justification  the  rite  was  divinely  imposed.  The 
inference  would  be  that  the  justified  Gentiles  now  in  the 
Church  should  follow  Abraham  as  an  example  and  receive 
the  same  sign.  The  covenant  with  the  patriarch  as  it 
stands  in  our  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis  was  pos- 
itive, concluding  with  the  solemn  words  :  "  The  uncir- 
cumcised  man  child  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  cir- 
cumcised, that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people;  he 
hath  broken  my  covenant"  (Gen.  xvii,  14).     It  was  an 


THE   COUNCIL   IN   JERUSALEM.  295 

ordinance  "  forever."  The  patriarch  administered  it  to 
his  whole  household,  including  Ishmael,  to  "  every  male 
among  the  men  of  Abraham's  house."  And  on  what 
Scripture  ground  could  the  Gentiles  whom  Paul  had  led 
to  Christ  refuse  the  token  of  the  covenant?  Moreover, 
without  this  token  they  were  coming  into  the  Church 
with  a  decided  advantage  over  the  Jew.  They  were 
under  no  ceremonial  restraint.  And  yet  while  the  Old 
Testament  unequivocally  held  out  the  hope  of  Messi- 
anic benefit  to  the  heathen  it  invariably  teaches  that 
when  that  hope  came  to  fruition  they  were  to  occupy  a 
subordinate  place  in  the  kingdom.  Isaiah  predicted  to 
the  Jew  that  the  sons  of  the  alien  should  be  his  plow- 
men and  vinedressers,  "  but  ye  shall  be  named  the  priests 
of  the  Lord"  (Ixi,  5,  6).  Zechariah  prophesied  that  in 
the  coming  time  "  the  Lord  will  smite  the  heathen  that 
come  not  up  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles  "  (xiv,  18). 
They  must  be  subject  to  this  Jewish  feast.  So  con- 
stantly is  the  superiority  of  the  Jew  promised  in  the  Old 
Testament  that  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Romans,  must 
carefully  defend  the  church  order  in  which  the  Gentile 
is  on  a  par  with  the  Jew,  if  not  his  superior.  If  the  Gos- 
pel is  to  rub  out  all  ceremonial  distinctions  and  establish 
a  universal  religious  level  the  question,  "What  advantage 
then  hath  the  Jew  ?  "  was  inevitable.  In  writing  to  Rome 
Paul  argues  through  three  chapters  (ix,  x,  xi)  to  answer 
it.  And  looked  at  from  this  point  of  view  this  is  the 
question  now  before  the  meeting  in  Jerusalem,  and  it  is 
answered,  at  least,  in  James's  speech,  substantially  as 
Paul  replies  to  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xi,  25-27). 
The  problem  was  to  save  both  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  Antioch  stood  for 
the  former,  the  teachers  who  came  down  from  Jerusalem 
for  the  latter.     God's  Spirit  harmonized  the  two. 

Since  unanimity  of  sentiment  could  not  be  reached  on 


296  ANTMIIC.HER   CRITICISM. 

the  Orontes,  "  they  determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
and  certain  other  of  them  should  go  up  unto  the  apostles 
and  elders  about  this  question."  Mark,  it  is  not  said 
that  they  were  sent  to  the  apostles  and  elders  that 
these  officers  might  settle  the  question.  The  Lord 
had  not  committed  the  guidance  of  the  church  affairs 
to  men.  The  delegates  traveled  through  the  heathen 
country  Phenicia,  and  the  semi-heathen  country  Samaria  ; 
for  had  they  journeyed  on  Jewish  soil  their  report  from 
heathendom  might  not  have  been  so  acceptable.  On 
arriving  at  the  Jewish  capital  they  are  formally  received 
by  the  Church  and  its  leaders.  Paul  and  Silas  report 
their  work  among  the  heathen.  A  number  of  Jewish 
believers  who  were  Pharisees  at  once  threw  down  the 
gauntlet  in  declaring  "  that  it  was  needful  to  circumcise 
them  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses." 
Whether  these  were  genuine  believers  we  need  not  in- 
quire. They  were  certainly  sincere  and  conscientious. 
The  question  about  their  faith  would  not  arise  were  it 
not  that  Paul,  in  all  probability  writing  afterward  about 
this  very  meeting,  calls  some  of  its  members  "  false 
brethren "  (Gal.  ii,  1-5).  To  all  appearance,  too,  the 
men  who  precipitated  the  question  now  in  Jerusalem 
were  not  the  men  who  started  the  strife  at  Antioch. 

At  this  stage,  as  it  would  seem,  the  meeting  adjourned 
to  come  together  subsequently.  Of  this  second  session 
it  is  said  the  apostles  and  elders  came  together.  The 
Church  is  not  mentioned  ;  but  the  leaders  include  the 
followers,  for  the  subsequent  acts  of  this  second  meeting 
make  it  certain  that  the  whole  body  of  believers  partici- 
pated in  them.  The  session  opens  with  a  long  debate. 
There  was  much  disputing.  The  Pharisees  had  abun- 
dant arguments,  and  they  found  full  liberty  to  present 
them.  They  were  in  no  official  position,  but  they  had 
a  voice  in  the  deliberations,  and  so  far  an  equal  stand- 


THE   COUNCIL   IN   JERUSALEM.  297 

ing  with  everyone  else  present.  Peter  arose.  Will  he 
decide  by  his  apostolic  authority?  No,  he  also  resorts 
to  argument.  And  it  is  very  simple.  He  recalls  the 
fact  of  his  visit  to  Cornelius,  but  with  the  direct  assertion 
that  God  sent  him,  that  by  his  mouth  the  Gentiles 
might  hear  the  word  of  the  Gospel  and  believe  (v,  7). 
Then  comes  the  proof.  God  bore  witness  to  his  accept- 
ance of  the  Gentiles  as  Gentiles  in  that  he  gave  them 
the  Holy  Spirit.  This  bestowal  was  sunlight  evidence 
of  the  divine  will.  To  deny  it  was  to  tempt  God.  The 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  the  house  of  Cornelius  blotted 
out  the  distinctive  mark  between  Jew  and  Gentile  so 
that  there  was  no  "  difference."  This  gift  settled  the 
question  so  that  it  was  no  longer  a  matter  of  debate. 
God  had  shown  his  mind.  But  Peter  makes  two  points 
further,  which  show  how  reasonable  God's  decree  in  the 
case  is:  first,  why  ask  the  Gentiles  to  submit  to  a  sys- 
tem which  the  Jew  in  all  history  was  unable  to  endure, 
"which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear.^" 
Such  a  demand  upon  the  heathen  was  certainly  inde- 
fensible, not  to  say  cruel.  Again,  Peter  shows  that  the 
very  Jews  who  had  the  system  comprehended  under  cir- 
cumcision had  to  abandon  it  as  an  inadequate  means  of 
justification,  and  believe  in  order  to  be  saved.  Virtually 
they'  had  to  become  Gentiles  so  far  themselves,  and 
trust  to  the  grace  of  the  Lord,  even  as  the  Gentiles. 
Circumcision  was  inadequate  as  a  condition  of  eternal 
life. 

Peter's  argument  must  have  stopped  every  mouth. 
His  question,  "Why  tempt  ye  God?"  after  he  had  so 
clearly  shown  his  will  in  his  gift  to  Cornehus,  must  have 
tied  every  tongue.  Peter's  speech  is  worthy  of  note  in 
what  it  does  not  say.  He  never  once  mentions  the 
vision  of  the  sheet  let  down  from  heaven,  and  the  thrice 
repeated  voice  which  he  heard,  "  What  God  hath  cleansed, 


298  ANTI-IIinilER   CRITICISM. 

that  call  not  thou  common  or  unclean."  The  reason  for 
his  silence  here  is  clear  enough.  His  personal  vision 
was  primarily  for  himself.  It  was  intended  to  convince 
him.  But  what  God  did  publicly  in  the  effusion  of  the  spirit 
in  Caisarea  was  for  the  public.  It  could  not  be  denied. 
It  was  an  argument  so  mighty  that  no  other  was  needed. 
Again,  Peter  does  not  stop  to  harmonize  the  stand  which 
he  had  taken  with  what  the  Scriptures  promised  the 
Jew.  His  position  plainly  is  that  what  God's  word  says 
must  be  learned  in  the  light  of  what  God  does.  The 
divine  act  is  a  higher  court  than  the  divine  record  ;  for 
while  God,  when  understood,  is  never  contrary  to  his 
word,  he  is  before  his  word,  and  above  his  word,  and 
the  ultimate  interpreter  of  that  word.  In  all  this  Peter 
was  not  without  the  very  highest  precedent.  The  wily 
Pharisees  had  laid  a  cunning  snare  for  Jesus  in  the  ques- 
tion, "  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  ? " 
(Mark  x,  2.)  If  he  says  yes,  in  agreement  with  Moses 
(Deut.  xxiv,  I,  2),  he  will  be  in  conflict  not  only  with  his 
own  forerunner,  who  lost  his  head  for  his  reproof  of  Herod 
on  this  point,  but  in  conflict  also  with  the  best  sentiment 
of  his  own  times,  the  sentiment  which  John  reflected. 
If  Jesus  says,  "  No,  do  not  put  away  a  wife,"  the  Pharisees 
are  sure  to  retort,  "  Why  did  Moses  then  command  to 
give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away?" 
(Matt,  xix,  7.)  But  the  way  out  of  this  dilemma  lay 
open  before  the  divine  Teacher.  He  appeals  to  God's  ac^ 
in  the  beginning,  who  made  one  man  and  one  woman, 
and  thereby  indicated  his  will.  Moses's  law  of  divorce 
was  not  in  conflict  with  this,  did  not  annul  the  legisla- 
tion indicated  in  creation,  but  served  only  as  a  restraint 
on  men  who  would  not  accept  the  monogamous  rela- 
tion. Peter  followed  this  method  effectively  before  the 
Pharisees,  who,  we  may  be  sure,  pleaded  God's  word  as 
a  proof  that  the  Gentiles  must  be   circumcised.     The 


THE   COUNCIL   IN   JERUSALEM.  299 

office  of  circumcision   was  not   shown    in   this  meeting. 
Paul's  epistles  first  make  it  plain  (Rom.  iv,  10). 

And  here  we  see  now  clearer  than  ever  why  Peter  did 
not  refer  to  his  wonderful  vision  in  which  he  heard  the 
command,  "  Rise,  Peter;  kill,  and  eat;"  "What  God  hath 
cleansed,  that  call  not  thou  common."  All  this  was  out- 
side the  scope  of  the  argument  from  God's  act,  the  argu- 
ment which  he  used.  It  would  have  been  no  proof  at 
all  to  place  what  God  said  in  the  vision  against  what  he 
said  in  his  word  about  circumcision.  Both  statements 
must  be  explained  by  the  ultimate  revelation  of  his  will 
in  the  gift  of  his  Spirit  to  Cornelius. 

Peter's  speech  induced  silence,  and  gave  the  ears  of 
the  assembly  to  Barnabas  and  Paul.  The  Pharisees 
could  object  no  longer.  If  they  were  not  convinced, 
Peter  had  at  least  stopped  their  mouths.  The  mission- 
aries' speech  is  of  precisely  the  same  character  as  that 
of  the  chief  of  the  apostles.  They  did  not  "  communi- 
cate that  gospel  which  they  had  preached  among  the 
Gentiles"  (Gal.  ii,  2).  They  did  not  say  they  had  gone 
to  the  heathen  by  the  direct  command  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Their  argument  is  of  the  same  sort  as  Peter's, 
and  exactly  in  the  same  line.  "They  declared  what 
miracles  and  wonders  God  had  ivr ought  among  the  Gen- 
tiles by  them."  That  God  attended  their  work  with 
supernatural  manifestations  of  his  power  was  his  unmis- 
takable approval  of  that  work.  His  acts  indicated  his 
will. 

James  follows  Barnabas  and  Saul.  His  speech  pre- 
sents the  first  difficulty  found  in  studying  the  minutes 
of  this  meeting.  It  is  a  double  difficulty.  In  the  first 
place  he  resorts  to  what  the  Scriptures  say  after  Peter's 
superior  argument  from  what  God  has  done  in  the  mat- 
ter in  question.  Must  we  then  say  the  weaker  argument 
came  in  last  ?     But  worse  than  all,  when  James's  quota- 


300  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

tion  from  Amos  is  considered  it  does  not  appear  to  bear 
on  the  subject  of  debate.  It  predicts  the  salvation  of  the 
heathen,  which  no  one  in  this  meeting  denied,  but  says 
not  one  word  about  the  condition  on  which  that  salva- 
tion was  to  be  offered,  which  was  the  very  matter  in  dis- 
pute. Furthermore,  its  leaning  is  toward  the  Phari- 
saic side,  in  that  it  at  least  implies  that  the  Gentiles  are 
to  be  saved  in  subordination  to  the  Jews.  The  house  of 
David  is  to  be  reared  up  that  the  residue  of  men  might 
seek  the  Lord.  But  restoring  the  house  of  David  in- 
volved the  restoration  of  Israel  along  with  it,  and  so  the 
Gentiles  would  come  in  second  to  Israel. 

But  why  should  it  be  assumed  that  James  is  support- 
ing Peter's  speech,  that  was  in  itself  conclusive,  and  that 
carried  the  day?  "  All  the  multitude  kept  silence."  And 
how  does  James  support  Peter's  speech  with  a  passage  of 
Scripture  that  does  not  touch  the  debated  point?  All 
difficulties  vanish  when  it  is  seen  what  James  is  after. 
The  Pharisees  were  silenced  ;  they  needed  to  be  soothed. 
The  Scripture  was  still  on  their  side,  and  though  they 
could  not  reply  to  Peter,  what  should  they  do  with  that 
Scripture  ?  It  is  not  the  way  of  the  New  Testament  to 
leave  earnest,  honest  men  in  such  a  state  of  perplexity  ? 
James  proposes  to  show  that  all  Scripture  which  the 
Pharisees  might  cite  in  favor  of  Jewish  superiority  and 
supremacy  was  relevant,  but  not  relevant  at  this  time, 
not  relevant  in  the  state  of  things  which  God's  Spirit  had 
now  surely  brought  about  in  which  Jew  and  Gentile  were 
on  the  same  level.  He  begins  by  a  startling  interpreta- 
tion of  Peter's  words :  "Simeon  hath  declared  how  God 
at  the  first  did  visit  the  Gentiles."  For  what?  To  take 
the  whole  of  them,  as  is  everywhere  contemplated  in  the 
Old  Testament?  No  ;  but  to  "  take  out  of  them  a  people 
for  his  name,"  a  selected  number,  a  discrimination  of 
which  the  Old  Testament  gave   no  hint.     The  hardest 


THE   COUNCIL   IN   JERUSALEM.  30I 

thing  for  a  patriotic  but  half-enlightened  Jewish  believer 
to  accept  was  this  prediction  of  Jesus  now  surely  coming 
to  pass,  "The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you, 
and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof" 
(Matt,  xxi,  43).  Israel's  sun  was  setting  in  darkness. 
They  had  rejected  the  Messiah,  who,  now  enthroned,  was 
saving  neither  the  nation  of  Israel  nor  any  other  nation. 
He  was  creating  a  new  nation  composed  of  individual 
believers  from  all  nations.  Peter,  in  his  first  epistle,  ex- 
pands this  very  idea.  He  addresses  the  saints  as  "  elect 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,"  as  a  "chosen 
generation,"  as  a  "holy  nation."  He  is  not  interpreting 
the  idea  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Old  Testament 
does  not  contain  this  idea — an  elect  body  of  believers 
composed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  on  an  equality,  or,  in 
other  words,  a  Church.  This  conception  was  first  given 
to  Paul  by  revelation.  He  must  have  got  it  before  he 
ever  set  out  to  evangelize  the  heathen.  He  declares 
that  "  in  other  ages  it  was  not  made  known  to  the  sons 
of  men  "  that  "  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow-heirs,  and  of 
the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by 
the  Gospel  "  (Eph.  iii,  5,  6).  Now  the  former  ages  knew 
very  well  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  saved,  and  the 
prophets  of  those  ages  clearly  predicted  the  fact.  But 
they  did  not  know  of  the  birth  of  a  Church  meanwhile 
in  which  Israel  was  to  have  no  distinction.  James  says 
that  Peter  is  declaring  this  new  and  unpredicted  thing. 
And  since  the  Old  Testament  did  not  contemplate  it 
how  could  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  be  found 
to  bear  on  it  ? 

When  Peter's  speech  is  understood  and  its  significance 
shown  James  brings  in  his  quotation :  "  After  these 
things  I  will  return,"  etc.  After  what  things?  (for  the 
original  is  plural.)  After  God's  elective  visit  to  the  na- 
tions and  his  creation  of  a  Church.  It  is  not  after  the 
20 


302  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

d.iys  of  Amos,  but  after  the  days  of  Israel's  desolation 
and  a  completed  Church  ;  for  the  prophet  did  not  use 
the  words  "after  ihcse  things;"  they  belong  to  James. 
They  are  his  explanation  of  the  prediction  in  so  far  as 
they  show  to  what  period  it  applies.  The  time  had  not 
yet  come  for  its  fulfillment.  When  the  Church  has 
reached  its  complement,  then  the  Lord  will  return  and 
rear  up  the  fallen  house  of  David,  when  not  an  elect 
number,  but  "all  of  the  Gentiles,"  shall  seek  the  Lord. 
Now  this  would  satisfy  the  Pharisees.  They  were  satis- 
fied, for  the  meeting  came  to  a  unanimous  verdict.  They 
could  see  how  James's  interpretation  of  Peter's  speech 
"  agreed  "  with  the  words  of  the  prophets,  of  whom,  how- 
ever, he  quoted  but  one.  The  agreement  consisted  in 
this,  that  there  was  no  conflict  when  all  was  properly  re- 
ferred. If  the  quotation  from  Amos  said  nothing  about 
circumcision,  the  very  thing  which  had  caused  the  pres- 
ent dissension,  why,  no  matter.  Amos  was  not  speaking 
of  the  present,  and  that  is  all  that  James  set  out  to  show. 
When  the  time  foretold  by  Amos  dawns  it  will  bring  the 
light  in  which  to  solve  the  discussions  which  such  a 
period  may  awaken. 

The  words  of  Amos  conclude  with  the  assertion  that 
the  Lord  does  these  things.  The  readings  var}-,  but 
this  is  the  sense  of  any  of  them.  Now,  for  James  to 
(]uote  such  words  in  the  sense  that  the  Lord  would  save 
r.ie  Gentiles  is  pointless.  But  to  quote  them  as  indi-' 
c  iting  that  the  Lord  was  making  a  Church  was  to  claim 
,1  divine  foundation  for  it,  and  to  put  the  passage  in 
accord  with  James's  interpretation  of  Peter.  Scripture 
was  not  needed  to  prove  Gentile  salvation,  but  it  was 
lielpful  to  say  that  the  Lord  was  the  author  of  such  a 
state  of  things  as  had  arisen  among  the  believers,  in 
w  hich  Jew  and  Gentile  were  not  distinguished. 

James  now  proposes  the  resolution  which  carries.    His 


THE   COU^XIL   IN   JERUSALEM.  303 

language  is  consistent  with  his  insight  into  Peter's  speech. 
He  does  not  say,  "Let  us  not  trouble  the  Gentiles," 
but,  "  Let  us  not  trouble  them  which  from  among  the 
Gentiles  are  turning  to  God."  And  the  principle  being 
now  settled  James  proposes  as  a  matter  of  policy  that  the 
Gentile  believers  be  instructed  to  abstain  from  meat  that 
had  been  used  in  idol  worship,  from  blood,  and  from  for- 
nication. This  inhibition  was  made  in  deference  to  the 
Jews.  Moses,  read  every  Sabbath  day  in  the  synagogue, 
forbade  such  things;  and  the  conscience  of  those  who 
followed  him  must  not  be  offended  by  those  who  fol- 
lowed Christ. 


304  '  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 


THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS. 


BY  WILLIAM  DINWIDDIE,  D.D. 


The  best  answer  possible  to  be  given  to  the  assaults 
on  the  Scriptures  in  our  day,  or  in  any  day,  is  simple, 
holy  living  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 
For  a  study  in  this  line  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians  furnish  a  unique  example.  They  are  the  earliest  in 
date  of  all  the  epistles  of  Paul;  they  bring  before  us  ex- 
amples of  believers  in  the  first  freshness  and  bloom  of 
Christianit}',  but  who  are  expressly  commended  to  us  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  himself  as  models  "to  all  that  believe  in 
Macedonia  and  Achaia "  (i  Thess.  i,  7).  At  the  date 
of  the  first  epistle  they  had  not  been  brought  into  the 
Church  more  than  a  month,  perhaps,  and  all  their  teach- 
ing had  been  received  from  Paul  himself,  the  chief  of  the 
apostles,  and  those  who  accompanied  him.  Here,  then, 
we  see  believers  in  the  first  freshness  and  simplicity  and 
purity  of  the  Christian  life.  And  the  apostle  in  address- 
ing them  makes  no  assertion  of  his  apostolic  authority,  as 
in  later  epistles,  when  evils  had  become  rife  in  the  Church- 
es, but  associates  himself  simply  with  Silvanus  and  Timo- 
theus  as  fellow-laborers.  The  Thessalonians  needed  not 
authoritative  control,  because  they  were  walking  in  sim- 
ple-hearted obedience. 

It  might  be  startling  to  find  them  addressed  in  both 
epistles  as  "  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians  which  is 
in  God  the  Father,  and  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  a  form 
of  address  used  only  in  these  two  epistles,  if  we  did  not 
see  in  this,  too,  an  illustration  of  the  primitive  simplicity 


THE   EPISTLES   TO    THE   THESSALONIAXS.  305 

of  their  faith.  The  Lord  himself,  in  John  xiv,  15-23, 
had  held  up  obedience  as  an  essential  of  the  Christian 
life,  and  had  promised,  as  he  was  himself  to  leave  the  dis- 
ciples, to  have  the  Father  send  them  another  helper  to 
stay  with  them  forever — the  Spirit  of  truth,  whose  pres- 
ence dwelling  with  them  was  to  be  in  them  after  he 
came,  and  was  to  mark  them  off  in  complete  separation 
from  the  world.  This  coming  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost 
marked  a  new  day,  and  "  at  that  day  ye  shall  know  that 
I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you."  This 
was  accepted  in  simple  faith  by  "  the  Church  of  the  Thes- 
salonians  which  is  in  God  the  Father,  and  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." 

I  Thess.  i,  2-4.  These  simple-hearted  believers  were 
always  calling  forth  thanksgivings  from  the  apostle  in 
his  prayers  as  he  remembered  their  work  of  faith  and 
labor  of  love  and  patience,  of  hope  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  sight  of  God  and  our  Father.  It  is  striking 
how  the  faith  and  love  and  hope  of  these  believers  are 
brought  before  us  in  this  portraiture  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  how  often  in  Paul's  writings  these  same  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  are  presented  in  their  close  relation  to  each  other. 
In  the  noble  eulogy  of  them  in  i  Cor.  xiii  the  force  of 
the  truth  is  obscured  to  readers  of  the  English  Bible  by 
the  substitution  of  "  charity  "  for  "love."  i  Cor.  xiii,  13, 
ought  to  read,  "  And  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  love,  these 
three ;  but  the  greatest  of  these  is  love."  With  what  a 
shock  would  we  hear  one  read  in  i  John  iv,  8  or  16, 
"  God  is  charity !  "  But  it  is  identically  the  same  word 
translated  "charity"  in  i  Cor.  xiii. 

There  is  the  closest  connection  between  faith,  love, 
and  hope.  As  the  sin  of  man  began  in  unbelief  in  the 
garden,  so  his  restoration  begins  with  reversing  the  dis- 
honor done  to  God  by  the  doubt  of  his  kindness  and  his 
truth  suggested  by  the  tempter.     So  everywhere  faith  is 


306  AXTI-MIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  condition  of  salvation.  Preach  the  word,  the  Gospel 
of  God.  He  that  believeth  is  saved  ;  he  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned.  But  faith  works  by  love.  Knowing 
and  believing  the  love  that  God  hath  to  us,  we  love  be- 
cause he  first  loved  us.  But  when  the  Spirit  sheds  abroad 
this  love  of  God  in  our  hearts  he  not  only  shows  us  the 
things  freely  given  to  us  of  God  here — our  sonship,  near- 
ness, and  acceptance  in  the  beloved — but  he  also  shows 
us  "things  to  come,"  and  makes  us  to  exult  in  hope  of 
the  glory  of  God.  Here  it  is  our  hope  comes  into  play 
(Rom.  V,  1-5). 

Look  at  the  same  graces  in  the  Ephesians,  another 
Church  of  model  believers,  and  perhaps  the  Church  of 
highest  spiritual  attainment  of  all  mentioned  in  the  epis- 
tles, because  the  most  exalted  truth  is  written  to  them. 
Ephesians  is  the  very  highest  mountain  peak  of  Scripture 
teaching.  In  chapter  i,  15-18,  we  see  that  their  faith 
was  not,  as  when  Paul  first  visited  them  (Acts  xix,  1-7), 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus  who  was  yet  to  come,  according  to 
the  teaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  but  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  who  has  come  and  has  completed  the  work  the 
Father  gave  him  to  do  here,  and  now  "  God  hath  made 
him  both  Lord  and  Christ"  (Acts  ii,  36).  Full  Christian 
faith  is  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  faith  in  the 
Ephesians  called  forth  Paul's  unceasing  thanks,  as  did 
also  the  love  it  wrought  in  them,  embracing  "  all  the 
saints."  But  he  goes  on  to  pray  for  them  that  their 
Christian  character  may  grow  unto  perfection,  through 
the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of 
God  given  unto  them,  that  they  may  also  know  the  hope 
of  their  calling  (Eph.  i,  15-18). 

Again,  in  Heb.  x,  19-24,  brethren  are  exhorted,  in  view 
of  the  perfect  provision  made  for  it  in  Christ,  to  use  their 
boldness  of  access  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus, 
to  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assurance  of  faith, 


THE    EPISTLES   TO   THE   THESSALONIANS.  307 

(verse  22);  to  hold  fast  the  profession  of  their  hope  without 
wavering,  because  God,  on  whose  promise  it  rests,  is  faith- 
ful (verse  23)  .  and  to  consider  one  another,  to  provoke 
unto  love  and  good  works.  Our  English  Bibles,  in  verse 
23,  say  "the  profession  of  our  faith,"  but  any  reason  for 
the  putting  of  "  faith  *'  here  in  the  place  of  "  hope,"  which 
the  word  always  means,  I  have  never  been  able  to  dis- 
cover. The  blunder  is  inexcusable.  But  no  man  can 
tell  how  much  this  blunder  has  done  to  obscure  the 
hope  of  the  Church  to  all  English-speaking  people. 

These  examples  of  the  collocation  by  the  spirit  of 
faith,  love,  and  hope  are  sufficient  to  show  us  that  they 
are  the  great  essentials  of  Christian  character.  In  the 
natural  order  of  their  development  they  come,  first  faith, 
then  love,  then  hope.  And  it  is  most  instructive  to  see 
that  the  enemy,  in  his  assault  on  the  Thessalonians,  at- 
tacked the  latest  and  least  developed,  their  hope. 

Thus,  when  Paul  in  his  great  anxiety  for  them  in  the 
persecutions  through  which  they  were  passing,  sent  Timo- 
thy to  comfort  and  sustain  them,  he  says  he  was  com- 
forted (chapter  iii,  1-7)  by  the  good  tidings  which  Timo- 
thy brought  of  their  faith  and  love.  But  why  does  he 
say  nothing  here  of  their  hope?  Because  their  hope  had 
become  obscured  through  their  ignorance,  which  he  sets 
himself  to  remove  in  chapters  iv  and  v. 

In  these  days  the  professing  body  has  so  far  departed 
from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ  (2  Cor.  xi,  3)  that  it 
requires  an  effort  to  comprehend  the  trouble  into  which 
the  Thessalonians  had  fallen.  y\t  the  beginniq^  their 
faith  set  them  to  work,  their  love  set  them  to  work  hard, 
to  labor  in  the  service  of  Christ ;  and  their  hope  was  so 
simple  and  bright  that  they  met  all  their  trials  in  pa- 
tience of  hope  (chapter  i,  3).  For  the  Gospel  came  not 
to  them  in  word  only,  as  to  so  many  now,  but  also  in 
power,  yet  not  the  power  of  human  eloquence  or  dispaly 


308  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

in  any  way,  but  in  the  Holy  Ghost  using  his  own  word. 
And  so  they  received  it  in  much  assurance.  They  re- 
ceived the  word  of  God  which  they  heard  from  Paul  not 
as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of 
God  (i  Thess.  ii,  13).  Here  we  enter  an  atmosphere  en- 
tirely unknown  to  the  so-called  higher  criticism.  When 
the  word  of  God  is  so  received  it  must  be  in  much  as- 
surance. It  is  the  word  of  God,  and  the  simple  receiving 
of  that  word  admits  no  degree  of  faith.  Everything  short 
of  assurance  mixes  unbelief  with  faith,  so  to  speak,  and 
is  so  far  a  dishonor  to  God  as  it  fails  to  give  glory  to  God 
(Rom.  iv,  20). 

How  could  they  know  that  Paul's  preaching  was  the 
word  of  God  and  not  of  man?  Paul  says  it  was  (i  Cor. 
ii,  13).  But  how  could  the  Thessalonians  know  it?  Let 
Jesus  answer.  "  I  am  the  light  of  the  world  :  he  that 
followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have 
the  light  of  life."  "  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would 
love  me."  "Why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech? 
even  because  ye  cannot  hear  my  word."  "  He  that  is 
of  God  heareth  God's  words"  (John  viii,  12,  42,  43,  47). 
Surely  God's  way  is  better  than  man's.  "  Thou  hast  hid 
these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes"  (Matt,  xi,  25).  "Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  shall  in 
no  wise  enter  therein  "  (Luke  xviii,  17). 

The  Tliessalonians  having  received  God's  word  in  this 
simple,  childlike  faith,  at  once  identified  themselves 
with  those  who  were  believers  before  them.  "  Ye  became 
followers  of  us  and  of  the  Lord,"  like  the  Philippians, 
Lydia,  and  the  jailer,  and  others  concerning  whom  Paul 
thanked  God  on  every  remembrance  of  them  for  their 
fellowship  with  the  Gospel  from  the  first  day  till  now 
(Phil,  i,  3-5).  And  this  was  no  easy-going  acceptance  of 
the  Gospel,  as  with  so  many  now,  but  "  ye  received  the 


THE   EPISTLES   TO   THE   THESSALONIANS.  309 

word  in   much  affliction  with  joy  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
who  made  it  so  plain  and  powerful  to  them. 

Such  a  simple  faith  commands  attention  in  this  un- 
believing world,  and  no  limit  can  be  set  to  its  influence  over 
others.  Not  only  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  but  also  in 
every  place,  the  faith  of  the  Thessalonians  toward  God 
was  spread  abroad.  The  results  of  that  faith  in  their 
lives  the  Spirit  sums  up  in  a  few  graphic  touches:  "Ye 
turned  to  God  from  idols  to  serve  the  living  and  true 
God  ;  and  to  wait  for  his  Son  from  heaven,  .  .  .  even 
Jesus,  which  delivered  us  from  the  wrath  to  come " 
(i  Thess.  i,  9,  10). 

Here  we  have  the  character  of  true  primitive,  apostolic, 
model  Christianity  traced  by  the  Spirit  for  the  guidance 
of  God's  children  for  all  time.  They  turned  to  God 
from  idols.  Any  turning  that  stops  short  of  this  fails,  as 
with  many  phases  of  temperance  and  other  reforms. 
Jesus  died,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us 
to  God  (i  Peter  iii,  18).  In  view  of  Christ's  perfect  offer- 
ing of  himself  once,  we  have  (all  believers  have)  boldness 
to  enter  into  the  holiest,  God's  very  presence,  by  his 
blood  (Heb.  x,  19).  But  some  one  may  say  we  have  no 
idols  to  turn  from.  But  God  says  covctousness  is  idol- 
atry (Col.  iii,  5),  idolatry  the  most  subtle  and  well-nigh 
universal. 

In  what  spirit  are  we  thus  to  turn  to  God  ?  To  serve 
him,  the  living  and  true  God,  to  give  our  will  entirely  up 
to  his,  as  slaves  to  their  master.  And  who  is  he  that  I  am 
to  serve?  Let  Psalm  cxxxix,  and  Heb.  xii,  29,  answer. 
And  how  can  I,  a  sinner,  serve  an  omnipresent  and  omnis- 
cient God,  from  whom  nothing  can  be  hid,  and  who  in 
his  holiness  is  a  consuming  fire  to  sin  ?  Only  as  I  believe 
in  Jesus,  who  died  for  me,  whom  God  made  to  be  sin  for 
me,  who  bore  my  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  but 
who  then  finished  the  work  God  gave  him  to  do,  glorified 


J;0  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

God  even  in  regard  to  my  sins,  in  proof  of  which  God 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  our  Deliverer,  who  has 
delivered  us  from  the  wrath  to  come.  This  dehverance 
is  so  complete  that  twice  in  the  second  chapter  of  Ephe- 
sians  it  is  said  to  us,  "  By  grace  ye  are  saved"  (Eph.  ii, 
5,  8) ;  not  going  to  be  saved,  but  the  saving  is  a  com- 
pleted work,  in  the  strongest  and  most  unambiguous  wa)- 
in  which  it  could  possibly  be  expressed  in  the  Greek 
language. 

What  is  the  attitude  of  these  model  Christians  toward 
this  Saviour?  An  essential  part  of  their  religion  was 
"  to  wait  for  God's  Son  from  heax-en."  All  believers  did 
this  at  the  beginning.  The  Lord's  own  word  compels  us 
to  do  so  when  we  simply  believe  him.  "  Let  your  loins 
be  girded  about,  and  your  lights  burning  ;  and  ye  your- 
selves like  unto  men  that  wait  for  their  lord,  when  he 
will  return  from  the  wedding;  that,  Avhen  he  cometh  and 
knocketh,  the)'  may  open  unto  him  immediately."  "  For 
the  Son  of  man  cometh  at  an  hour  when  ye  think  not  " 
(Luke  xii,  35,40).  At  the  beginning  they  all  took  their 
lamps  and  went  forth  to  meet  the  bridegroom.  But 
while  the  bridegroom  tarried  they  all  slumbered  and 
slept,  according  to  the  Lord's  prediction  (Matt,  xxv, 
1-13).  So  universal  was  this  slumber  in  the  region  in 
which  the  writer  was  brought  up  that,  though  a  student 
in  one  of  our  oldest  Christian  colleges,  and  living  under 
the  shadow  of  a  theological  seminary,  he  was  twenty-five 
years  old  before  he  ever  saw  a  man,  woman,  or  child  who 
was  waiting  for  the  Son  of  God  to  come  from  heaven, 
and  that,  too,  tliough  the  last  j^aragraph  of  tlicir  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  asserts  that  Christ  would  have  us  always 
watchful,  for  we  know  not  at  what  hour  he  will  come. 

But  it  is  at  the  Christian's  hope  that  the  enemy,  the 
devil,  strikes  first.  When  he  can  obscure  or  pervert  this 
the  way  is  then  easy  to  undermine  the  love  and  the  faith 


THE   EPISTLES   TO    THE   THESSALONIANS.  3II 

also.  So  he  sought  to  do  with  the  Thessalonians,  and 
it  is  most  instructive  to  see  how,  again  and  again,  in 
every  chapter  of  both  epistles,  the  Spirit  recalls  them  to 
the  hope  of  the  Lord's  coming. 

This  hope  is  an  essential  part  of  Christian  life.  "  Ye 
turned  to  God  from  idols  to  serve  the  living  and  true 
God  ;  and  to  wait  for  his  Son  from  heaven  "  [i  Thess.  i, 
9,  10).  After  the  fervent  and  loving  exhortation  of  the 
second  chapter  that  they  should  walk  worthy  of  God, 
who  had  called  them  unto  his  kingdom  and  glory,  he 
says,  "  For  what  is  our  hope,  or  joy,  or  crown  of  rejoic- 
ing? Are  not  even  ye  in  the  presence  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  at  his  coming?"  Feel  the  glow  of  the 
great  apostle's  heart  reproducing  the  very  love  of  Christ 
for  his  saints  in  the  third  chapter,  and  see  how  it  all 
culminates  in  the  prayer  at  the  end,  "  And  the  Lord 
make  you  to  increase  and  abound  in  love  one  toward 
another,  and  toward  all  men,  even  as  we  do  toward  you  : 
to  the  end  he  may  stablish  your  hearts  unblamable  in 
holiness  before  God,  even  our  Father,  at  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  his  saints  "  (i  Thess.  iii, 
12,  13). 

What  more  glorious  scene  in  the  future  before  us  than 
this  "  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  his 
saints?"  But  ask  the  first  dozen  Christians  you  meet 
about  it,  and  you  will  see  that  the  scene  docs  not  enter 
their  thought.  They  may  be  looking  for  death,  or  for 
the  conversion  of  tlie  Jews,  or  of  the  whole  world,  or  for 
great  political  changes,  but  not  for  the  coming  of  the 
Lord,  or,  if  for  his  coming,  not  for  his  coming  with  all 
his  saints.  And  the  hope  being  obscured,  the  love  is 
also.  They  may  be  trying  to  love  their  neighbors  as 
themselves,  but  the  "  new  commandment,"  "  my  com- 
mandment "  (John  xiii,  34,  and  xv,  12),  to  love  one  an- 
other, the  brethren,  as  Christ  has  loved  us,  hardly  enters 


312  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

as  an  element  in  their  love.  Legal  bondage  has  sup- 
planted Christian  liberty  and  love. 

This  deep  and  all-embracing  brotherly  love  is  carefully 
guarded  in  the  fourth  chapter  against  the  impurity  to 
which  it  might  lead  through  the  temptation  of  Satan  and 
the  vileness  of  the  flesh.  And  it  is  a  simple,  beautiful 
picture  of  a  model  church  sketched  in  verses  9  to  12  of 
this  fourth  chapter.  After  Avhich  the  apostle  sets  himself 
to  restore  their  hope. 

Why  were  they  grieving  for  those  whom  Jesus  had  put 
to  sleep  ?  It  was  ignorance.  Does  not  God  with  Christ 
also  freely  give  us  all  things  ?  "  All  things  are  yours ;  .  .  . 
whether  .  .  .  life,  or  death."  But  in  their  ignorance  they 
supposed  that  their  departed  brethren  would  be  shut  out 
from  the  glory  of  the  Lord's  coming,  for  which  they  had 
all  been  waiting.  Far  from  it,  as  the  apostle  now  shows 
in  an  express  revelation  the  Lord  now  gives  him  for 
the  Church  :  "  This  we  say  unto  you  by  the  word  of  the 
Lord." 

Briefly,  when  the  Lord  comes  he  will  descend  into  the 
air,  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  We  that  are 
alive  and  remain  unto  his  coming  shall  not  precede  them  ; 
but  we  shall  be  caught  up  together  with  the  risen  dead 
to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air.  "And  so  shall  we  ever  be 
with  the  Lord."  i  Cor.  xv  adds  that  it  will  occur  in  a 
moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  And  it  will  be  with 
our  glorified  bodies.  For  we  shall  be  like  him,  seeing 
him  as  he  is. 

This  for  believers  only,  to  comfort  them.  For  unbe- 
lievers there  is  nothing  but  sudden,  unexpected,  and 
overwhelming  destruction.  "They  shall  not  escape." 
Let  us,  then,  who  are  of  the  day  be  always  awake,  wait- 
ing, watching,  as  the  Lord  himself  commands,  in  the 
light  as  he  is  in  the  light,  having  on  "  the  breastplate  of 
faith  and  love;  and  for  a  helmet,  the  hope  of  salvation." 


THE   EPISTLES   TO   THE   TIIESSALONIANS.  313 

"  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly  ;  and  I 
pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  pre- 
served blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  Here,  as  in  i  John  iii,  3,  the  mighty  motive  to 
holy  living  is  the  hope  of  the  Lord's  coming. 

In  the  second  epistle  another  assault  is  made  by  Satan 
on  their  hope.  Here,  still,  "your  faith  groweth  exceed- 
ingly, and  the  love"  (not  charity)  "of  every  one  of  you 
all  toward  each  other  aboundeth,"  but  there  is  no  word 
of  praise  about  their  hope. 

Their  hope  was  obscured  again,  not  from  ignorance 
now  of  the  details  of  the  Lord's  coming  given  to  com- 
fort them  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters  of  the  first 
epistle.  But  the  assault  comes  from  a  new  direction. 
They  were  tempted  to  be  shaken  in  mind  and  troubled 
upon  pretended  revelations  claiming  to  be  by  the  Spirit, 
or  by  some  word  of  the  Lord  given,  or  by  a  forged  let- 
ter from  Paul  himself,  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  al- 
ready present,  not  at  hand,  as  in  the  common  English 
version.  The  error  is  inexcusable,  and  has  been  cor- 
rected in  the  Revised  Version  ;  but  it  has  been  long  used 
by  Satan  to  put  Scripture  in  seeming  contradiction  with 
itself,  and  to  obscure  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
coming. 

There  is  a  clear  distinction  in  Scripture  between  the 
Lord's  coming  and  the  day  of  the  Lord.  His  coming  is 
the  blessed  hope  of  the  Church,  its  pole  star,  bringing 
comfort,  and  nothing  but  comfort,  to  believers.  The  day 
of  the  Lord,  as  seen  in  Isa.  ii,  Zech.  xiv,  and  other  Scrip- 
tures, is  the  close  of  man's  day,  when  God  deals  in  judg- 
ment with  him.  Paul  says,  in  i  Cor.  iv,  3,  "  But  with 
me  it  is  a  very  small  thing  that  I  should  be  judged  of 
you,  or  of  man's  dajy  It  is  "  day,"  and  not  judgment, 
as  in  the  common  version.  Man  is  judged  in  the  day  of 
the  Lord.    "  For  the  day  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  shall  be  upon 


314  ANTI-IIIGIIER    CRITICISM. 

every  one  that  is  proud  and  lofty,  and  upon  every  one 
that  is  hfted  up  ;  and  he  shall  be  brought  low :  .  .  .  and 
the  Lord  alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day  (Isa.  ii,  12,  17). 

The  Thessalonians  were  falsely  taught  to  believe  that 
the  day  of  the  Lord  had  already  come,  and  that  they 
were  consequently  in  the  midst  of  judgment.  They  had 
forgotten  the  assurance  of  the  first  epistle,  "  For  God 
hath  not  appointed  us  to  wrath,  but  to  obtain  salvation 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  (i  Thess,  v,  9).  Or,  as  it  is 
stated  in  the  seventy-seventh  answer  of  the  Westminster 
Larger  Catechism,  "Justification  doth  equally  free  all 
believers  from  the  revenging  wrath  of  God,  and  that 
perfectly  in  this  life,  that  they  never  fall  into  condem- 
nation." 

The  error  is  corrected  to  the  foundation  by  a  simple 
and  clear  statement  of  the  complete  deliverance  of  be- 
lievers from  judgment  and  wrath  (2  Thess.  i,  4-12). 

Paul  gloried  in  their  patience  and  faith  in  all  their 
tribulations,  which  were  that  to  which  we  are  called — not 
only  to  believe  in  Christ,  but  also  to  suffer  for  his  sake. 
These  sufferings  of  the  Christian  are  the  measure  of  his 
reward  :  "  If  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  v/e  miiy 
be  also  glorified  together  "  (Rom.  viii,  17).  The  believer 
shall  not  come  "  into  judgment,  but  hath  passed  out  of 
death  into  life"  (John  v,  24).  So  when  the  Lord  comes 
to  judge  he  will  bring  rest  to  believers  who  are  troubled, 
and  will  recompense  tribulation  to  those  who  trouble 
them,  because  he  is  a  righteous  God.  His  grace  reigns 
through  righteousness  in  forgiving  our  sins  ;  Jesus  inter- 
cedes for  believers  when  they  sin,  as  their  righteous  ad- 
vocate (i  John  ii,  i),  and  God  will  righteously  punish  his 
enemies,  in  flaming  fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
know  not  God  and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

How  can  a  believer,  in   view  of   these  things,  suffer 


THE   EPISTLES   TO   THE   THESSALONIANS.  315 

himself  to  be  dislodged  from  the  blessed  hope  of  the 
Lord's  coming?  "  All  things  are  yours  ;  .  .  .  things  pres- 
ent, or  things  to  come."  So  their  hope  is  brought  back 
clear  and  bright  to  their  view,  and  the  entreaty  follows, 
"  Now  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  our  gathering  together  unto 
him  "  (2  Thess.  iv),  do  not  be  troubled. 

The  apostle  then  concludes  with  important  instruction 
for  the  last  days.  All  the  second  epistles  give  truth  for 
the  last  days. 

Not  before  the  Lord's  coming  is  it  said,  for  that  has  no 
date  given  to  man,  but  before  the  day  of  the  Lord,  there 
shall  come  the  apostasy  (not  a  falling  away).  In  2  Tim, 
iii  is  drawn  the  terrible  picture  of  that  apostasy  in  one 
stage,  when  men  shall  have  the  form  of  godliness  but 
deny  the  power  thereof.  But  the  apostasy  culminates 
here  in  Satan's  counterfeit  Christ,  the  embodiment  of  the 
mystery  of  iniquity  which  was  already  at  work  as  both 
John  and  Paul  teach,  and  was  to  continue  till  the  Lord 
himself  should  consume  him  with  the  breath  of  his 
mouth,  and  destroy  him  with  the  brightness  of  his  com- 
ing. All  manner  of  false  teachings  should  be  rife  in 
those  days  in  teachings  devised  with  Satanic  ingenu- 
ity and  successful  in  God's  righteous  judgment  to  de- 
ceive those  who  received  not  the  love  of  the  truth  that 
they  might  be  saved.  Such  is  the  fate  that  hangs  over  a 
worldly  Church  and  a  godless  world. 

Believers  shall  be  kept  from  all  this.  Their  safety  is 
in  holding  fast  the  truth  handed  down  to  them  steadfast 
in  their  hearts  and  established  in  very  good  word  and 
work.  They  must  withdraw  from  association  with  those 
who  cast  discredit  on  God's  word  (2  Thess.  ii,  15  ;  iii,  3, 
4,  6,  14,  17).  "And  if  any  man  obey  not  our  word  by 
this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with 
him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed.     Yet  count  him  not  as  an 


3l6  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother."  And  that 
they  might  be  sure  they  had  his  very  epistle,  thus  bound 
with  divine  authority  on  their  conscience,  he  appends  a 
salutation  in  his  own  handwriting,  "  which  is  the  token 
in  every  epistle :  so  I  write." 

It  needs  but  a  word  to  point  out  how  directly  and  to- 
tally opposite  to  such  a  life  as  is  here  pictured  of  model 
believers  are  the  whole  tone  and  spirit  and  results  of 
the  so-called  higher  criticism,  as  demonstrated  in  the 
papers  before  this  Conference. 

Blessed  be  God  for  such  a  bright  example  of  simple, 
childlike  faith  and  holy  living  shown  us  by  the  Spirit  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  ;  and  blessed  be  his 
holy  name  that  in  these  simple  letters,  which  reveal  to  us 
also  the  very  heart  of  the  chiefest  of  the  apostles,  we 
have  imbedded  the  truth  that  we  have  the  very  word  of 
God  in  the  Scriptures,  and  we  can  know  that  we  have  his 
word.  "  He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God's  words"  (John 
viii,  47).  "  And  a  stranger  will  they  not  follow,  but  will 
flee  from  him  ;  for  they  know  not  the  voice  of  strangers  " 
(John  X,  v).  "Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One, 
and  ye  know  all  things  "  (i  John  ii,  20).  The  Holy 
Spirit  reveals  the  truth  to  even  the  babes  in  Christ,  so 
that  they  need  not  that  any  man  teach  them  (r  John  ii, 
27);  and  this,  too,  in  the  face  of  the  final  culmination  of 
antichristian  apostasy,  to  which  the  pride  of  man,  hur- 
ried on  by  the  confusion  of  Church  and  world  in  Chris- 
tendom, is  fast  rushing  (i  John  ii,  18-28). 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF  JOHN.  317 


FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN. 


BY  PROFESSOR  JAMES  M.  STIFLER,  D,D., 
Crozer  Theological  Seminary. 

The  epistle  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  in  the  New 
Testament.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  profound  gratitude 
that  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Holy  Spirit  it  is  so  written 
that  it  can  be  read  with  great  profit  even  when  its  aim 
and  its  analysis  are  unknown.  Most  of  its  statements 
are  complete  in  themselves.  Its  verses,  one  after  another, 
stand  like  independent  aphorisms,  complete  in  them- 
selves. "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to 
forgive  us  our  sins."  We  need  nothing  from  the  context 
to  understand  this.  Again  the  comforting  words,  "And 
if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father;" 
and  the  inspiring  utterance,  "  Beloved,  now  are  we  the 
sons  of  God,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall 
be :  but  we  know  that,  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be 
like  him  ;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is."  These  sen- 
tences, and  scores  of  others  in  the  book,  are  each  like  a 
brilliant  stone,  that  has  its  light  within  itself  and  needs 
no  setting  to  enhance  its  value.  And  yet  gems  in  a  heap, 
while  each  is  intrinsically  precious,  gain  a  far  higher 
value  when  skillfully  set  in  proper  order  in  some  design, 
a  crescent,  a  star,  a  crown,  or  even  a  string.  John's 
aphorisms  are  not  given  haphazard.  Each  one  is  part 
of  a  beautiful  design,  and  each  holds  its  own  logical 
place.  It  adds  immensely  to  the  power  and  glory  of 
this  book  to  discover  this  logical  place  of  each  part. 
And  this  is  what  I  am  in  quest  of  to-day. 
21 


3l8  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM, 

In  studying  this  epistle  three  chisses  of  difficulties  con- 
front us  at  the  outset. 

First,  there  are  frequent  repetitions,  not  only  of  the 
same  thought,  but  in  the  same  words.  We  have  two  sim- 
ilar passages  on  the  Antichrist,  one  in  the  second  chapter 
and  one  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth.  In  the  second 
chapter  we  have  three  classes  addressed  each  twice,  and 
one  of  them,  the  fathers,  in  precisely  the  same  words : 
"  I  write  unto  }Ou,  fathers,  because  ye  have  known  him 
that  is  from  the  beginning."  We  have  three  passages 
on  love,  and  in  these  love  of  the  brother  is  enjoined  over 
and  over.  In  one  of  these  passages  we  have  twice  the 
pregnant  little  sentence,  "  God  is  love."  And  finally  the 
epistle,  as  a  whole,  is  so  much  like  the  gospel  of  John 
that  some  have  been  bold  enough  to  say  that  it  is  a  neat 
imitation  of  the  gospel  by  another  and  much  later  hand. 
But  this  appearance  of  uniformity  and  repetition  is  only 
on  the  surface.  As  Alford  says  {Proleg.,  p.  164,  vol.  iv), 
it  is  "  produced  by  want  of  deep  enough  exegesis  to  dis- 
cover the  real  differences  in  passages  which  seem  to  ex- 
press the  same  "  thing.  Without  such  study  the  book 
loses  much  in  quantity,  nothing  being  gained  by  what  is 
supposed  to  be  a  second  statement  of  the  same  thing. 
It  loses  also  immeasurably  in  quality. 

A  second  difficulty  lies  in  the  meaning  of  John's  terms. 
What  was  his  idea  of  the  word  light — "  God  is  light  ?" 
What  is  his  idea  of  "  life  ;  "  of  world—"  love  not  the 
world;"  of"  fellowship;"  of  "born  of  God;"even  of"  sin?" 
All  these  terms  must  be  studied,  and  their  significance 
ascertained,  if  we  are  to  understand  the  epistle. 

The  third  class  of  difficulties  belongs  to  interpretation. 
There  are  passages  which  seem  to  defy  exegesis :  "  His 
seed  remaineth  in  him  and  he  cannot  sin."  Who  or 
what  is  the  seed?  And  why  cannot  such  sin?  What  is 
it  to  come  "  by  water  and  blood,  not  in  the  water  only, 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF  JOHN.  319 

but  in  the  water  and  in  the  blood  ?  "  What  is  the  sin 
unto  death  ?  "  If  any  man  see  his  brother  sin  a  sin  which 
is  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  he  shall  give  him 
life  for  them  that  sin  not  unto  death."  Who  shall  give 
the  life  to  them  not  guilty  of  mortal  sin — the  man  who 
prays  or  God  ? 

A  rigid  analysis  does  something,  does  much  toward 
clearing  up  these  difficulties.  It  will  dissipate  the  repeti- 
tions and  aid  in  an  understanding  of  the  terms. 

To  analyze  the  epistle  is  no  easy  task.  It  was  not  at- 
tempted before  the  days  of  Calvin,  who  himself  did  not 
believe  that  there  was  any  contextual  connection  in  the 
book.  Bengel  was  among  the  first  to  attempt  an  analysis, 
and  his  cannot  be  accepted.  Liicke,  Diisterdieck,  and 
Alford  have  done  the  first  effective  work  in  tracing 
out  the  continuity  of  John's  thought.  And  he  is  sure  to 
fail  here  who  applies  to  John  the  methods  so  useful  in 
Paul.  The  two  reach  the  same  conclusions,  but  by  very 
different  nieans.  Paul  and  John  are  remarkably  alike, 
so  much  so  that  it  is  easier  to  reconcile  Paul  with  John 
than  to  reconcile  Paul  with  himself.  But  their  mode  of 
thinking  is  different.  Paul  is  analytical.  John  is  ana- 
tomical. Paul's  reasoning  is  like  building  a  house  which 
may  be  put  up  in  any  architectural  form.  John's  is  the 
construction  of  a  human  body  which  can  have  but  one 
form.  Or  rather  Paul  looks  at  things  in  their  logical  re- 
lation, John  in  their  vital  natural  relation.  There  is 
some  sort  of  relation  between  wood,  hay,  stubble,  gold, 
silver,  precious  stones,  but  it  is  not  natural  and  neces- 
sary. This  is  Paul.  There  is  an  intrinsic  relation  be- 
tween light  and  life,  between  birth  and  character,  between 
love  and  conduct;  and  this  is  John. 

But  before  we  even  attempt  an  outline  analysis  we 
must  ask,  What  was  John's  aim  in  writing  this  epistle? 
What  did  he  ^^•ish  to  effect  ? 


320  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  aim  of  almost  all  the  epistles  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  the  same — steadfastness.  The  salvation  of  men 
depends  on  two  things,  first,  to  get  them  into  Christ, 
and,  secondly,  to  have  them  stay  there.  The  Galatians 
accepted  the  Gospel,  but  very  soon  were  in  danger  of 
adding  the  law,  and  Paul  writes  to  induce  them  to  con- 
tinue in  their  simple  faith.  The  Hebrews  accepted  Christ, 
but  were  in  danger  of  relapsing  to  Judaism  again,  and 
they  receive  a  letter  showing  them  how  Judaism,  or,  more 
properly,  Mosaism,  received  its  completion  and  perfec- 
tion in  Christ,  and  was  therefore  out  of  date.  But  while 
steadfastness  is  the  aim  of  the  epistles  in  general  the 
danger  is  not  always  the  same.  The  evils  with  which 
Paul  had  to  contend  in  the  churches  came  mostly  from 
Judaism.  John's  first  epistle  was  written  many  years 
after  the  latest  of  Paul's.  It  is  substantially  proved  that 
it  belongs  to  the  last  decade  of  the  first  century.  Juda- 
ism had  received  a  terrible  blow  in  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  lay  paralyzed.  It  troubled  the  Churches 
no  more.  But  a  new  foe  had  arisen,  that  which  John 
calls  the  world.  In  Paul's  day  the  churches  were  in 
little  danger  from  the  world  which  was  at  war  with  them. 
They  were  in  the  condition  of  Israel  in  the  days  of 
Joshua.  They  were  conquering  the  enemy  and  were  in 
little  danger  of  corrupting  alliances.  But  later  in  Israel's 
history,  when  the  land  of  Canaan  became  theirs,  and 
wars  were  over,  Israel  began  to  intermarry  with  the  de- 
scendants of  their  former  foes  and  to  adopt  their  wor- 
ship and  ways.  In  Paul's  day  the  world  opposed, 
but  in  John's  it  began  to  seduce.  Paul's  enemies  were 
religionists;  John's  were  philosophers.  Paul  told  the 
Ephesian  elders  in  the  spring  of  A.  D.  58  that  from 
among  themselves  should  "  men  arise,  speaking  perverse 
things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after  them."  In  John's 
day  this  prediction   had  come  to  pass.     Jewish  perverts 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   JOHN.  32 1 

had  yielded  their  place  to  Christian  perverts  ;  and  John 
writes  to  these  churches  in  Asia  Minor,  possibly  to  this 
very  church  at  Ephesus,  to  stand  by  the  Gospel  as  it  had 
been  given  to  them  at  the  beginning,  and  not  yield  to 
the  world  and  its  seducing  teachers. 

I  need  not  say  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and 
in  that  to  Timothy,  Paul  clearly  notes  the  beginning  of 
these  gnostic  errors  with  which  John  had  to  contend. 

The  Epistle  of  John  shows  a  much  higher  order  of 
Christian  development  than  the  epistles  of  Paul.  The 
latter  must  write  to  the  Thessalonians  not  to  violate  the 
seventh  commandment.  He  reproaches  the  Corinthi- 
ans for  this  very  sin  and  others  as  gross.  He  must  ex- 
hort others  not  to  lie  and  not  to  steal.  All  this  is  wholly 
absent  from  this  First  Epistle  of  John.  There  is  no  hint 
of  any  immorality.  John's  readers  are  in  fellowship  with 
God,  and  are  urged  only  to  one  grace,  the  highest,  to 
practice  a  love  like  God's.  They  may  have  been  guilty 
of  immoralities,  for  there  is  mention  often  enough  of  sin, 
and  of  that  one  deadly  sin,  but  their  danger  was  greater, 
that  of  abandoning  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  for  some 
speculations  about  him. 

It  is  interesting,  too,  to  note  the  differences  between 
Paul  and  John  as  to  their  premises  or  sources  of  author- 
ity to  induce  steadfastness.  Paul  has  three  of  these  on 
which  he  mainly  relies,  the  covenants,  the  law.  and  his 
own  apostolic  office.  John  uses  none  of  these.  He  never 
mentions  the  covenants,  does  not  quote  a  word  from  the 
Bible,  and  never  urges  his  apostolic  authority.  Paul  ex- 
plains the  significance  of  the  covenants,  he  expounds  the 
Old  Testament,  and  he  stands  for  his  authority  as  an  apos- 
tle. "Am  I  not  an  apostle?  Have  I  not  seen  Christ?  " 
In  John's  day  a  false  philosophy  was  overlaying  these, 
and  men  were  claiming  a  knowledge  and  a  wisdom  supe- 
rior to  that  of  an  apostle.     Hence  John  depends  for  his 


322  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

argument  on  the  righteous  character  of  God,  who  is  hght, 
on  the  believer's  relation  to  such  a  God,  and  the  charac- 
ter and  knowledge  which  necessarily  flow  from  such  a 
relation.  Jesus  said,  "  At  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I 
am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you  "  (John  xiv, 
20).  That  knowledge  is  definite  and  trustworthy.  The 
word  "  know  "  is  a  favorite  one  with  John  throughout  the 
epistle.  His  climax  is,  "  We  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may 
know  him  that  is  true  "  (r  John  v,  20).  It  is  not  his 
own  individual  knowledge,  but  that  of  the  whole  believing 
community,  that  he  insists  upon.  He  opposes  the  false 
gnosis  by  the  real  true  gnosis.  Some  men  decry  reli- 
gious experience.  What  is  practical  Christianity  but  an 
experience  of  Christ,  a  heart  that  is  filled  with  his  presence 
and  is  more  certain  of  him  than  of  itself?  ''  I  have  writ- 
ten unto  you,  fathers,  because  ye  have  known  him  that  is 
from  the  beginning.  I  have  written  unto  you,  young  men, 
because  ye  are  strong,  and  the  word  of  God  abideth  in 
you,  and  ye  have  overcome  the  wicked  one.  I  write 
unto  you,  little  children,  because  ye  have  known  the 
Father."  A  man  who  knows  Christ  and  knows  the 
Father  has  a  knowledge  to  which  one  can  appeal,  and 
John's  appeal  is  directly  to  it. 

This  knowledge  is  knowledge.  It  is  not  scholarship,  it 
is  not  learning  ;  it  is  absolutely  certain  and  direct  ;  it 
is  like  the  sunlight ;  it  is  its  own  evidence  ;  the  believer 
knows  that  he  knows.  Again,  It  is  like  the  sunlight  in 
that  it  is  pure  and  exclusive.  Darkness  is  impossible  be- 
fore light,  and  ignorance  and  doubt  are  expelled  by  a 
true  knowledge  of  God.  Paul  speaks  about  some  who 
are  ensnared  by  false  teachers  because  the  captives  arc 
"  ever  learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth"  (2  Tim.  iii,  7).  This  was  the  gnostic's  field. 
The    errorist    found  his  following    amone    those    whose 


FIRST   EPISTLE    OF  JOHN.  323 

learning  did  not  lead  to  light.  Hence  John's  appeal  to 
the  knowledge  that  is  certain,  and  the  assertion  that  it  is 
certain.  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee 
the  only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou  didst  send,  even 
Jesus  Christ  "  (John  xvii,  3). 

John's  epistle  contains  four  main  divisions  : 

I.  The  Introduction,  i,  1-4. 

Here  are  four  profound  statements : 

1.  The  life  was  manifested.  The  idea  here  is  not 
metaphysical.  He  means  just  that  concrete  exhibition 
seen  in  the  walk  and  character  of  Him  who  said,  "  I  am 
the  life,"  Jesus  Christ. 

2.  We  have  the  evidence  of  this  manifestation.  The 
gnostic  in  John's  day  denied  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  re- 
ality. The  gnostic  of  to-day  (only  now  he  sometimes 
calls  himself  an  agnostic)  does  the  same  thing  in  dis- 
puting his  resurrection.  John  meets  this  by  the  evidence 
of  three  of  the  five  natural  senses,  hearing,  sight,  touch. 
We  have  heard  his  word,  seen  his  works,  yea,  scanned 
them,  and  we  have  touched,  handled  his  body.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  note  that  \vhen  John  says  we  have  handled 
him  he  employs  an  unusual  word,  and  the  very  word  used 
by  Jesus  after  the  resurrection  when  he  said,  "  Handle  me, 
and  see  ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see 
[behold]  me  have"  (Luke  xxiv,  39).  By  this  word 
John  recalls  that  event  after  the  resurrection.  The  evi- 
dence that  the  life  was  manifested  is  not  that  of  a  dream 
or  of  a  \-ision,  it  is  not  that  deduced  from  reason  or 
philosophic  speculation.  It  is  the  evidence  of  hearing, 
sight,  touch.  It  is  more  certain  than  the  evidence  for 
the  law  of  gravitation  or  that  the  world  is  a  globe.  Could 
twelve  men  during  an  intercourse  of  three  years  with 
Jesus — could  they  possibly  mistake  in  the  things  they 
heard,  saw,  and  handled  ?  Could  they  possibly  mistake 
as  to  the  events  of  the  last  fort)'  days  when  these  twelve 


324  ANTI-HIGIIER   CRITICISM. 

men  "ate  and  drank  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the 
dead?"  (Acts  x,  41.)  The  prime  fact  of  the  Gospel  is 
founded  on  the  best  of  evidence,  that  of  the  senses, 
what  men  saw  and  heard  and  handled,  not  once  or  twice, 
but  for  days  and  years. 

But  now  while  John's  introduction  means  this  it 
means  much  more  than  this.  There  is  a  use  of  tenses  in 
this  introduction  that  our  King  James  Version  obscures 
and  that  the  Revision  does  not  fully  indicate.  John 
teaches  here,  not  only  that  they  have  seen  and  have 
heard  Jesus  Christ,  but  that  that  hearing  and  seeing  con- 
tinue in  the  present  experience.  The  former  is  historic 
and  literal,  the  latter  is  present  and  spiritual,  an  inward 
permanent  experience  of  the  historic  Christ.  And  so  Jesus 
taught,  and  John  records  the  words  (John  xiv,  19) :  "  Yet 
a  little  while,  and  the  world  seeth  me  no  more  ;  but  ye  see 
me:  because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also."  "  A  little  while, 
and  ye  shall  not  see  me :  and  again,  a  little  while,  and  ye 
shall  see  me,  because  I  go  to  the  Father  "  (xvi,  16).  "  He 
that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  will 
lovehim,  and  will  manifest  myself  to  him  "(xiv,  21).  This 
constitutes  a  clear  promise  that  Jesus  would  dwell  with 
and  in  his  people.  Salvation  begins  with  the  historic 
facts  about  Jesus;  he  lived,  he  died,  he  rose  again,  he 
taught  such  and  such  things.  But  thousands  know  all 
this  without  salvation,  for  that  does  not  occur  until  these 
facts,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  until  Christ  becomes  a 
present  fact  to  the  soul — until  he  manifests  himself  to 
the  soul.  John  combines  these  two,  for  the  former  with- 
out the  latter  makes  Christ  only  a  memory  and  leads  to 
barrenness.  The  latter,  the  spiritual  without  the  his- 
toric, leads  to  religious  extravagance  and  fanaticism  such 
as  was  seen  in  the  Corinthian  Church  and  sometimes  to- 
day. The  letter  leads  to  the  spirit,  but  the  spirit  is 
never  beyond  the  letter,  and,  so  to  speak,  is  subject  to  it. 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   J(^HN.  325 

In  Other  words,  Jesus  is  more  than  a  memory.  Follow- 
ing him  is  more  than  an  imitation  of  that  blessed  life  of 
his  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  gospels.  Following  him  is  a 
reproduction  of  that  life  by  its  own  present  power — a 
living  branch  in  a  living  vine. 

3.  We  declare  this  reality  to  you  that  ye  also  may 
have  fellowship  with  us.  He  that  shares  his  knowledge 
with  his  neighbor  brings  his  neighbor  into  a  possession 
common  with  himself.  To  declare  the  truth  is  to  strike 
up  a  light  that  embraces  in  its  beams  not  only  him  who 
has  it,  but  him  also  who  stands  near. 

4.  This  fellowship  is  with  the  Father  and  with  his  Son. 

Note. — It  must  be  observed  that  the  apostle  does  not  lead  his  read- 
ers from  tiie  historic  Christ  to  their  present  vital  relation  with  him. 
but  just  the  reverse — from  these  relations  to  the  historic  Christ.  And 
this  is  the  order  of  the  epistle. 

II.  The  Fellowship  in  Light,  i,  5-ii,  28. 

1.  The  character  of  him  with  whom  the  fellowship 
exists — light,  verse  5. 

2.  The  false  claim  of  this  fellowship  easily  detected, 
verse  6. 

Note. — He  who  is  continually  stumbling  over  everything  in  the 
path  and  ccmstantly  losing  the  path  has  either  no  eyes  or  no  light. 
Such  a  walk  would  be  a  slander  ("  we  lie  ")  on  light. 

3.  How  this  fellowship  is  maintained  by  a  sinner,  (a) 
because  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  i,  7-10,  and  {d)  because  of 
his  person,  ii,  i,  2. 

4.  The  requirement  or  test  of  this  fellowship — a  walk 
like  Christ's,  ii,  3-6. 

Note. — In  this  little  section  we  must  observe  the  rapid  change  but 
the  exact  equivalence  of  the  terms.  They  are  :  Fellovvship=knovving 
God;  knowing  God=loving  him  ;  loving  him  =  being  in  him  ;  being 
in  him^abiding  in  him.  This  is  John's  analysis  of  the  fellowship 
which  is  hereby  shown  to  be  a  permanent  union  with  God  in  Christ, 
like  that  in  John  xv.  The  terms  on  the  other  side  vary  also.  Keeping 
his  commandments  (verses  3,  4),  keeping  his  word  (verse  5),  and  walk- 
ing as  he  walked  (verse  6)  are  all  equivalent. 


326  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

5.  The  principle  of  Christ's  walk — love  (ii,  7-11),  old, 
as  it  was  in  him,  new  as  it  is  in  him  and  in  you. 

6.  At  this  point  (verse  12)  argument  stops  to  take  a 
nearer  view  of  the  community,  {a)  to  assure  them  of  what 
they  certainly  possess  in  virtue  of  their  union  with  Christ, 
and  (d)  to  point  out  their  two  great  sources  of  danger, 
the  world  and  the  Antichrist,  ii,  12-28. 

He  divides  the  community  into  three  character-class- 
es :  fathers,  young  men,  babes  ;  and  addresses  each  class 
twice.  In  the  second  address  to  the  young  men  he  warns 
them  against  the  world,  and  in  the  second  to  the  babes 
he  warns  them  against  the  Antichrist. 

T/ie  AnticJirist.  {a)  He  belongs  to  the  last  time,  ii,  18. 
(/;)  His  origin — went  out  from  us,  verse  19.  {c)  Why? — 
he  was  not  of  us,  not  anointed,  verse  19.  {d')  How  de- 
tected— by  the  anointing  which  teaches  of  all  things, 
namely,  light  and  darkness,  verses  20,  21.  (r)  Defined — 
he  denies  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  verse  22.  (  /)  Full 
meaning  of  the  denial — it  rejects  the  Father  as  well,  verse 
23.  i^g)  Exhortation  to  "  abide,"  with  the  encourage- 
ment of  the  promise — "  eternal  life,"  verses  24,  25. 
iji)  Second  mention  of  the  anointing  to  tell  that  it  abides 
and  that  the  convictions  which  it  awakens  are  true  and 
trustworthy,  verses  26,  27.  (/)  A  second  exhortation  to 
abide  in  view  of  the  second  advent,  verse  28. 

HI.  The  New  Birth  and  its   Consequences,   ii, 

29--V,  5- 

This  section  grows  out  of  the  wonderful  fact  stated  in 
ii,  29 — if  ye  know  that  he  is  righteous,  }'c  know  that  every 
one  that  doeth  righteousness  is  born  of  him.  And  this 
verse  connects  logically  with  the  little  table  in  section 
H,  4,  the  test,  etc,  and  adds  one  more  item:  Being  in 
him=abiding  in  him  ;  abiding  in  him=tobe  born  of  him. 

The  very  soul  of  the  fellowship  then  is  to  be  born  of 
God,  to  have   him   in  you,  and  to  find  yourself  in  him. 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   JOHN.  327 

This  section  is  the  counterpart  of  the  former,  which  was 
about  light  and  darkness.  But  here  instead  of  these 
terms  we  have  sin  and  love.  First,  sin,  ii,  29-iii,  10  a. 
Second,  Love,  iii,  10  b-v,  5. 

Sill.  In  John's  discussion  of  sin  the  difficulties  mostly 
disappear  when  it  is  observed  that  he  is  looking  at  it 
here  as  a  depraved  tendency  or  persistence,  and  not  as  an 
act  or  a  condition.  The  latter  phases  were  considered 
in  i,  7-ii,  2. 

1.  The  standard — children  like  Christ  at  his  coming, 
iii,  I,  2. 

2.  This  hope  prompts  to  a  continuous  process  of  purifi- 
cation, verse  3. 

3.  The  appeal  against  sin  :  {a)  It  is  defined,  verse  4. 
{b)  It  is  against  the  purpose  for  which  Christ  was  mani- 
fested— a  pathetic  consideration,  verse  5.  (r)  Its  remedy 
— abiding  in  him,  verse  6.  {d)  Character  and  relation- 
ship evinced  by  persistence  in  righteousness  and  per- 
sistence in  sin.  The  latter  shows  Satanic  origin,  for  he 
persistently  sins — "  from  the  beginning,"  verses  7-10  a. 

Lo7'e.  In  this  subsection  we  have:  (A)  Love,  iii,  lO  b- 
24.  {B)  The  Antichrist,  iv,  1-6.  {C)  The  subject 
of   love    completed   with    the    Antichrist    still    in  view, 

A.  I.  Brotherly  love  the  intent  of  the  gospel  message, 
iii,  10  b-13. 

2.  Brotherly  love  as  an  evidence  of  life,  verses  14,  15. 

3.  Love  described,  verse  16. 

4.  Enforced,  verses  17,  18. 

5.  Fruits  of  love,  verses  19-24.  {a)  The  knowledge 
of  standing  which  it  gives,  verse  19.  ib)  Effects  on  con- 
science and  confidence,  verses  20,  21.  (r)  This  confi- 
dence gives  success  in  prayer,  verse  22.  {d)  The  fullest 
sympathy  with  God,  a  union  sealed  by  the  Spirit,  verses 
23,  24. 


328  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

B.  The  Antichrist  again.  In  mentioning  for  the  first 
time  the  Spirit  (iii,  24)  John  is  reminded  of  the  world- 
spirit  which  animates  false  teachers.  This  second  men- 
tion of  the  Antichrist  is  every  way  different  from  the 
former  (and  additional).  There  he  was  looked  at  in  his 
relation  to  the  Church.  He  originated  from  it  and  was 
seducing  it.  Here  he  is  in  relation  to  the  world,  and  is 
deceiving  it.  There  his  spirit  was  not  mentioned.  Here 
it  is  fully  given.  There  he  denied  the  Messiahship  of 
Christ  Jesus.  Here  he  also  denies  his  real  proper  hu- 
manity. There  the  shield  against  him  was  the  Spirit ; 
here  there  is  the  additional  defense  of  brotherly  love. 

1.  Spirits  are  in  no  case  to  be  believed  but  tried,  iv, 
I  a. 

2.  The  need  of  this  caution — the  world  is  full  of  false 
prophets  animated,  of  course,  by  the  false  (world)  spirit, 
verse  i  b. 

3.  The  supreme  test — the  teaching  about  the  person 
of  Christ,  verses  2,  3  a. 

4.  This  false  animating  power  is  identified,  verse  3  b. 
Note. — The  King  James  rendering  is  not  adequate  here. 

5.  The  inferiority  of  this  world-spirit  to  the  true  spirit, 
verse  4. 

6.  The  antithesis  between  the  true  and  the  false— seen 

in  the  respective  following  of  the  two,  verses  5,  6. 

Note. — This  whole  section  might  be  condensed  to  two  heads — the 
false  teacher  tested  {a)  by  his  confession  about  the  Christ  and  {b)  by  his 
following,  Matt,  vii,  15-20. 

C.  Love  with  the  Antichrist  still  in  viciu.  John  had 
just  said  he  that  knoweth  God  hears  us.  But  who  knows 
him  ? 

1.  Love  as  the  ground  of  knowing  God,  verses  7,  8. 

2.  The  character  of  this  love.  It  led  God  to  send  his 
Son.  The  Antichri.st,  ignorant  of  love,  could  deny  the 
sending,  verses  9,  10. 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   JOHN.  329 

3.  An  exhortation  to  love,  flowing  from  the  character 
of  the  divine  love,  verse  11. 

4.  Brotherly  love  the  condition  of  the  indwelling  God, 
the  perfection  of  love,  verse  12. 

5.  The  Spirit  is  the  pledge  of  perfected  love,  or  of  the 
indwelling  God,  verse  13. 

6.  The  testimony  given  by  means  of  love,  verses 
14-16. 

Note. — John  still  has  the  Antichrists  before  him.  Their  testimony 
is  false  because  they  lack  both  the  Spirit  and  the  indwelling  God  who 
is  love.     Only  love  can  preach  love. 

7.  The  practical  effect  of  love  in  two  relations,  (a)  to- 
ward the  believer  himself,  verses  17,  18,  and  {I?)  in  its 
relation  toward  the  brother,  verses  ig-21. 

8.  The  condition  of  brotherly  love— faith  in  Christ, 
V,  I.  (a)  The  test  of  his  brotherly  love,  verses  2,  3  a. 
(d)  This  test  significant  and  sure  because  God's  com- 
mands are  light,  light  because  the  strength  of  the  new 
birth  overcomes  the  world  of  hate,  verses  3  b,  4.  (c)  A 
challenge  to  produce  the  man  who  rejects  Christ  and 
conquers  the  world,  verse  5. 

IV.  The  Conclusion. 
T/ie  testimony  to  Christ. 

I.  The  first  w'itness  is  in  the  hour  and  act  of  conver- 
sion. 

Note. — The  analysis  here  depends  wholly  on  the  interpretation.  It 
is  the  witness  of  believing  men,  verses  6-S. 

2c  The  greater  witness  of  God,  verses  9,  10  a. 

3.  The  obligation  to  accept  the  testimony,  verse  10  b. 

4.  The  purport  of  the  testimony — eternal  life  in  his 
Son,  verses  11,  12. 

After  this  eonclusion  of  tlie  argument  eomes  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  book. 

1.  The  aim  of  the  book  restated,  verse  13. 

2.  The  confidence   born   of  union  with  Christ — illus- 


330  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

trated    by   boldness    and    discriminating   intelligence   in 
prayer,  verses  14-17. 

3.  The  absolute  certainty  of  spiritual  knowledge, 
verses  18-20.  {a)  As  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  God's 
child  over  evil,  verse  18.  {b)  As  to  all  ultimate  rela- 
tionships, verse  19.  {c)  As  to  the  source  of  the  ability 
to  know,  with  which  is  connected  the  positive  statement 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  true  God,  verse  20. 

4.  The  final  warning.  Since  Jesus  is  true  God,  follow 
no  other;  shun  idols,  verse  21. 


THE   TESTIMONY    OF   THE    BIBLE.  33 1 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  BIBLE  TO  ITS  OWN 
INTEGRITY. 


BY  PASTOR  JAMES  H.  BROOKES,  D.D., 
Si.  Lottis. 


[The  following  address  was  not  written  at  the  time  of  the  Asbury  Park 
Conference,  but  it  is  here  substantially  reproduced  as  it  was  delivered 
there.— J.  H.  B.] 

WHAT   SAITH    THE   SCRIPTURE? 

With  the  apostle  this  question  was  an  end  of  all 
controversy.  Thus  he  writes  :  "  What  saith  the  Scrip- 
ture ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto 
him  for  righteousness  "  (Rom.  iv,  3).  Nothing  more  re- 
mained to  be  brought  forward  on  the  subject.  The  way 
of  being  counted  righteous  by  faith  was  definitely  set- 
tled, and  settled  by  Scripture.  Again  he  writes  :  "  What 
saith  the  Scripture  ?  Cast  out  the  bondwoman  and  her 
son  :  for  the  son  of  the  bondwoman  shall  not  be  heir 
with  the  son  of  the  free  woman  "  (Gal.  iv,  30).  The  be- 
liever's deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  legalism  is  finally 
and  fully  determined,  and  determined  by  Scripture. 
There  is  no  appeal  from  its  decision.  Eighteen  times  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  we  find  the  words,  *'  It  is 
written,"  that  is,  written  in  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  so  the  argument  is  complete,  the  proof  is  con- 
clusive, and  he  who  refuses  to  bow  to  the  authority  cited 
is  to  be  treated  as  "  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 

Hence  in  the  conflict  that  rages  around  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible  it  is  strange  that  so  little  attention  is  paid 
to  the  evidence  which  is  given   by  the  writers   of  the 


332  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Bible.  It  is  obvious  that  if  their  testimony  is  valueless 
upon  this  point  it  is  equally  valueless  in  relation  to  any 
other  statement  of  fact  or  doctrine  of  which  tliey  claim 
to  be  witnesses.  For  example,  they  tell  us  that  the  eter- 
nal Son  of  God  was  also  the  Son  of  a  virgin,  that  he 
healed  all  manner  of  disease  with  a  word,  that  he  walked 
upon  the  rolling  waves,  that  he  raised  the  dead,  that 
after  his  crucifixion  he  came  out  of  the  grave  and  as- 
cended bodily  and  visibly  into  heaven.  They  record 
many  other  marvelous  and  miraculous  events  that  lie 
wholly  beyond  the  range  of  our  experience  and  observa- 
tion ;  and  yet  all  real  Christians  believe  that  these  events 
literally  occurred,  because  they  believe  that  God  by  his 
Spirit  caused  them  to  be  recorded  ;  and,  as  one  who  is 
not  noted  for  his  soundness  in  the  faith  has  recently 
and  well  said,  "  It  is  impossible  that  an  inerrant  God  can 
be  the  author  of  an  errant  book." 

It  is  of  no  consequence,  therefore,  whether  the  subject 
of  revelation  is  the  creation  of  man,  or  his  fall  into  the 
deepest  depravity,  or  the  burial  of  the  earth  under  the 
waters  of  a  deluge,  or  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  by  a  rain  of  fire  and  brimstone,  or  the  voyage 
of  Jonah  in  a  great  fish,  or  the  walking  of  three  He- 
brews unhurt  amid  the  flames  of  a  furnace,  or  Daniel 
unharmed  in  the  den  of  lions,  or  the  incarnation  of 
Christ,  or  redemption  through  his  blood,  or  heaven  as 
the  abode  of  the  saved,  or  hell  as  the  habitation  of  the 
lost,  since  in  every  case  the  appeal  is  taken  from  the 
incapacity  of  the  human  reason  to  the  veracity  of  the 
truthful  God.  If  the  supernatural  is  removed  from  the 
Bible  no  Bible  is  left,  but  from  the  first  verse  of  Genesis 
to  the  last  of  the  Apocalypse  it  is  torn  into  the  smallest 
shreds.  Hence  the  believer  firmly  plants  himself  upon 
the  foundation  laid  down  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  boldly 
exclaims,   in    the  face  of  all  enemies  of  the   Scripture, 


THE   TESTIMONY    OF   THE   BIBLE.  333 

"Yea,  let   God  be  true,  but   every  man  a  liar"  (Rom. 

iii,  4)- 

The  Scripture  saith  distinctly  from  first  to  last,  more 
than  two  thousand  times,  that  while  its  words  are 
the  words  of  men  they  are  also  the  words  of  God  ;  and 
if  the  objection  is  raised  that  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 
the  human  and  the  divine  can  exist  side  by  side  in  the 
written  word,  is  it  less  difficult  to  see  how  the  human 
and  the  divine  can  exist  side  by  side,  without  confusion, 
in  the  person  of  the  incarnate  Word  ?  If  it  is  urged 
that  it  is  impossible  to  understand  how  the  human  ele- 
ment in  the  Bible  is  free  from  human  imperfection,  is  it 
easier  to  understand  how  the  human  nature  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  free  from  human  imperfection  ?  We 
are  told  that  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh  "  (John  i,  14), 
and  yet  every  Christian  believes  that  his  humanity  was 
absolutely  perfect,  because  he  believes  the  testimony  of 
Scripture,  he  "knew  no  sin"  (2  Cor.  v,  21);  he  was 
"without  sin"  (Heb.  iv,  15);  he  was  "holy,  harmless, 
undefiled,  separate  from  sinners  "  (Heb.  vii,  26)  ;  he  "  did 
no  sin  "  (i  Peter  ii,  22)  ;  "  and  in  him  is  no  sin  "  (i  John 
iii,  5). 

The  same  writers  assure  us,  as  do  all  the  writers  of  the 
Bible,  that  its  words  are  both  human  and  divine,  and 
consequently  that  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  is 
true  ;  by  which  is  meant  that  errors  and  mistakes  no 
more  occur  in  the  language  than  in  the  thoughts  ot 
Scripture,  because  both  language  and  thoughts  were 
under  the  immediate  control  and  direction  of  the  Hol\- 
Spirit.  These  writers  present  no  theory  of  inspiration, 
nor  are  we  permitted  to  form  a  theory,  for  it  is  not  a 
theory  but  a  fact  we  encounter,  as  much  as  when  we  read 
of  the  birth,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  oui" 
Lord.  All  the  imaginations  of  men,  therefore,  when 
they   talk   with    much   show   of    learning   of    the    inspi- 


334  ANTI-IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ration  of  "  the  concept  "  but  not  of  the  words,  of  "  dy- 
namic inspiration" — which  is  a  high-sounding  term,  but 
in  this  connection  has  no  sense — of  different  "  degrees 
of  inspiration,"  are  vanity  and  worse,  for  they  are  false. 

The  Bible  itself  knows  of  but  one  kind  of  inspiration, 
and  that  is  an  inspiration  which  extends  to  every  chap- 
ter, verse,  word,  and  syllable  of  the  original  Scriptures, 
using  the  mind  and  mouth,  the  heart  and  hand,  of  the 
writers,  guiding  them  in  the  least  particular,  guarding 
them  against  the  least  blunder,  and  making  their  utter- 
ance the  very  word  of  God  to  our  souls.  It  pains  one, 
then,  who  loves  that  word  to  hear  good  but  ignorant 
men  speak  of  the  imperfect  human  setting  which  holds 
the  gem  of  inspiration,  for  the  setting  is  the  work  of  the 
divine  Author  as  well  as  the  gem  ;  the  human  in  the  in- 
carnate Word  was  and  is  for  evermore  perfect,  and  the 
human  in  the  written  word  was  and  is  for  evermore  per- 
fect, or  we  have  no  Bible  at  all.  Of  course  no  claim  is 
made  for  the  inspiration  of  translations,  but  only  for  the 
inspiration  of  the  original  autographs,  or  the  writings  of 
the  men  through  whom  God  was  pleased  to  reveal  his 
will.  It  is  to  the  full  establishment  of  this  proposition, 
by  the  evidence  of  the  sacred  writers  themselves,  the 
attention  of  the  reader  is  now  invited  ;  and  if  their  tes- 
timony upon  any  subject  is  to  be  received  it  will  be  the 
easiest  possible  task  to  prove  that  the  Scripture,  and  the 
entire  Scripture,  claims  to  be,  and  is  in  fact,  altogether 
exempt  from  errors  or  mistakes  of  any  sort. 

OLD   TESTAMENT   WORDS    INSPIRED. 

The  apostle  writes  to  Timothy,  "  From  a  child  thou 
hast  known  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make 
thee  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus."  The  Scriptures  to  which  he  refers  are,  of  course, 
the  Old   Testament,  and   it   is  certain  that   the    apostle 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE.  335 

would  not  have  called  them  holy  if  they  are  full  of  errors 
and  mistakes,  as  the  higher  critics  affirm,  nor  could  he 
have  spoken  of  them  as  able  to  make  one  wise  unto  sal- 
vation, because  it  is  by  the  truth,  not  by  a  lie,  we  are 
sanctified  (John  xvii,  17). 

But  this  verse  is  followed  by  another  of  still  greater 
importance :  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  cor- 
rection, for  instruction  in  righteousness  :  that  the  man  of 
God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works"  (2  Tim.  iii,  16,  17).  The  word  Scripture  is  never 
applied  to  any  collection  of  books  but  the  Bible,  and  as 
it  means  a  writing,  and  as  a  writing  is  composed  of 
Avords,  it  is  certain  that  the  words  of  Scripture  were  given 
by  inspiration  of  God.  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
we  retain  the  common  reading  or  adopt  the  feeble  ren. 
dering  of  the  Revised  Version,  "  Every  Scripture  inspired 
of  God  is  also  profitable,"  a  rendering  which  Dean  Bur- 
gon,  one  of  the  Revision  Committee,  pronounced  "a  stu- 
pendous literary  blunder,"  and  which  is  defended  by  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  chairman  of  the  Revision,  on  the  ground  that 
it  renders  more  emphatic  the  testimony  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  each  and  every  portion  of  Scripture.  The  words 
of  every  and  all  Scripture  are  God-breathed,  God-spir- 
ited. 

However,  let  it  pass,  and  let  us  call  another  witness. 
A  prophet  is  one  v;ho  speaks  for  God,  a  prophecy  is  a 
communication  from  God  toman,  through  men  ;  and  "  the 
prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man  :  but 
holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  "(2  Peter  i,  21).  If  the  prophets  were  left  to  select 
their  own  language,  unguided  and  unguarded  by  divine 
direction,  then  it  is  untrue  that  the  prophecy  came  not 
by  the  will  of  man.  But  the  apostle  Peter  declares  that 
holy   men  of  God  spake — not  thought,  not  inspired  in 


336  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM, 

the  "  concept  " — but  spake,  being  borne  along  b)'  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Hence  the  apostle  writes  in  another  place, 
"  or  which  salvation  the  prophets  have  inquired  and 
searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that 
should  come  unto  you  :  searching  what,  or  what  manner 
of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  sig- 
nify, when  he  [the  Spirit]  testified  beforehand  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow  "  (i  Peter 
i,  10,  11).  Here  the  prophets  are  represented  as  search- 
ing diligently  their  own  writings,  like  amanuenses,  to 
discover  their  vast  scope  and  significance. 

Does  our  Lord  confirm  this  view?  Let  us  see. 
"  David  himself  said  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  The  Lord  said 
to  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I  make  thine 
enemies  thy  footstool "  (Mark  xii,  36).  David  wrote 
the  psalm,  and  not  some  unknown  postexile  author,  and 
he  said  what  is  here  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  "  Ye 
do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of 
God.  .  .  .  But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by 
God?"  (Matt,  xxii,  29-32.)  It  was  God  who  spoke  it, 
although  communicated  to  Moses,  and  by  Moses  re- 
corded (Exod.  iii,  6,    15,  16). 

Turning  back,  then,  to  the  ministry  of  Moses,  we  find 
that  he  recoiled  from  the  mission  to  Pharaoh  upon  which 
the  Lord  sent  him.  "  O  my  Lord,"  he  exclaimed,  "  I 
am  not  eloquent,  neither  heretofore,  nor  since  thou  hast 
spoken  unto  thy  servant;  but  I  am  slow  of  speech,  and 
of  a  slow  tongue.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Who 
hath  made  man's  mouth  ?  .  .  .  Now  therefore  go,  and  I 
will  be  with  thy  mouth,  and  teach  thee  what  thou  shalt 
say  "  (Exod.  iv,  10-12).  He  did  not  promise  to  be  with 
his  head,  and  teach  him  what  to  think,  nor  to  be  with 
his  mind,  and  give  him  a  concept,  but  to  be  with  his 
mouth,  and  teacli  him  what  to  say. 


THE   TESTIMONY    OF   THE   BIBLE.  337 

After  that  memorable  interview  the  phrase,  "The 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,"  "  The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses, 
saying,"  or  some  equivalent  expression,  occurs  five  hun- 
dred and  sixty  times  in  the  Pentateuch.  "  God  spake  all 
these  words,  saying  "  (Exod.  xx,  i).  "  Moses  wrote  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord  "  (Exod.  xxiv,  4).  "  The  tables  were 
the  work  of  God,  and  the  writing  was  the  writing  of  God, 
graven  upon  the  tables"  (Exod.  xxxii,  16).  "  The  Lord 
called  unto  Moses,  and  spake  unto  him  out  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them"  (Lev.  i,  i,  2);  and 
nearly  all  the  rest  of  the  book  professes  to  be  the  words 
which  God  put  into  the  mouth  of  Moses.  If  Moses  lied 
about  this,  of  course  he  may  have  lied  in  all  of  his  testi- 
mony, and  we  cannot  believe  him  in  a  single  statement, 
historical  or  doctrinal,  that  he  makes. 

Forty  years  after  the  Lord  promised  to  be  with  his 
mouth,  to  teach  him  what  to  say,  he  charged  Israel,  "  Ye 
shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command  you, 
neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it;"  and  why? 
Because  it  is  a  perfect,  inerrant,  and  therefore  infallible 
and  immutable  word.  He  then  speaks  of  "  the  day  that 
thou  stoodest  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  Horeb,  when 
the  Lord  said  unto  me,  Gather  me  the  people  together, 
and  I  will  make  them  hear  my  words.  .  .  .  And  the  Lord 
spake  unto  you  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire  :  ye  heard  the 
voice  of  the  words,  but  saw  no  similitude  ;  only  ye  heard 
a  voice"  (Deut.  iv,  2,  10,  12).  The  words  were  the  Lord's 
words,  not  only  when  he  spake  on  Sinai,  but  in  all  of 
his  communications  through  Moses,  and  hence  no  one 
could  add  to  them  or  diminish  from  them. 

When  we  come  to  what  may  be  called  the  second 
division  of  the  Bible,  in  which  David  is  the  leading 
prophet,  we  find  him  saying  in  his  last  words,  "The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and  his  word  was  in  my 


33B  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

tongue  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii,  2).  He  does  not  say  that  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  thought  by  him,  but  spake  by  him, 
nor  does  he  say  that  his  concept  was  in  his  mind,  but  his 
word  was  in  his  tongue.  Hence  David's  exaltation  of 
the  word  under  its  various  titles  is  very  remarkable. 
"The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul: 
the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the 
simple.  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the 
heart:  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlighten- 
ing the  eyes.  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  clean,  enduring  for- 
ever :  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous 
altogether  "  (Psalm  xix,  7-9).  "  Forever,  O  Lord,  thy 
word  is  settled  in  heaven.  .  .  .  Thy  word  is  a  lamp  unto 
my  feet,  and  a  light  unto  my  path.  .  .  .  Thou  art  near, 
O  Lord  ;  and  all  thy  commandments  are  truth.  .  .  .  Thy 
word  is  true  from  the  beginning,"  or,  "the  first  word" 
(Psalm  cxix,  89,  105,  15 1,  160).  Well  might  Agur  follow 
with  the  testimony,  "  Every  word  of  God  is  pure  :  he  is 
a  shield  unto  them  that  put  their  trust  in  him.  Add 
thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee,  and  thou 
be  found  a  liar  "  (Prov.  xxx,  5,  6).  About  three  hundred 
times  in  this  part  of  the  book  do  we  find,  "Thus  saith 
the  Lord,"  and  similar  expressions. 

When  we  look  into  the  prophets  one  may  be  taken  as 
a  sample  of  all.  The  Lord  ordained  Jeremiah  to  be  a 
prophet  unto  the  nations,  and  he  answered,  "  Ah,  Lord 
God!  behold,  I  cannot  speak:  for  I  am  a  child.  But 
the  Lord  said  unto  me,  Say  not,  I  am  a  child  :  for  thou 
shalt  go  to  all  that  I  shall  send  thee,  and  whatsoever  I 
command  thee  thou  shalt  speak.  .  .  .  Then  the  Lord  put 
forth  his  hand,  and  touched  my  mouth.  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  me,  Behold,  I  have  put  my  words  in  thy 
mouth"  (Jer.  1,6-9).  Afterward  the  Lord  said  to  him, 
"  Stand  in  the  court  of  the  Lord's  house,  and  speak  unto 
all  the  cities  of  Judah,  which  come  to  worship  in  the 


THE    TESTIMONY    OF    THE    BIBLE.  339 

Lord's  house,  all  the  words  that  I  command  thee  to 
speak  unto  them  ;  diminish  not  a  word  "  (Jer.  xxvi,  2). 
"  Thus  speaketh  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  saying,  Write 
thee  all  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  thee  in  a 
book  "  (Jer.  xxx,  2). 

Thus  it  is  with  all  the  prophets  without  exception. 
Every  one  of  them  declares  that  he  uttered  the  very 
words  of  the  Lord,  and  more  than  twelve  hundred  times 
we  read,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  or  its  equivalent.  What 
was  true  of  Ezekiel  was  true  of  the  rest :  "  Son  of  man, 
go,  get  thee  unto  the  house  of  Israel,  and  speak  with 
my  words  unto  them "  (Ezek.  iii,  4).  The  cause  of 
Israel's  overthrow  was  their  foolish  rejection  of  God's 
words,  and  it  may  be  so  again  with  the  professing  Church  : 
"  They  made  their  hearts  as  an  adamant  stone,  lest  they 
should  hear  the  law,  and  the  words  which  the  Lord  of 
hosts  hath  sent  in  his  Spirit  by  the  hands  of  the  former 
prophets  :  therefore  came  a  great  wrath  from  the  Lord 
of  hosts  "  (Zech.  vii,  12).  In  the  last  little  Book  of  Mal- 
achi  twenty-five  times  we  read,  "  Saith  the  Lord  ;  "  and 
hence  when  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  followers  delight  to  tell 
us  that  they  discover  "  innumerable  errors  in  the  Old 
Testament  "  it  does  not  prove  the  real  existence  of  such 
errors,  but  only  the  ignorance  of  the  critics. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW, 
Scarcely  do  we  open  the  New  Testament  before  we 
are  struck  with  the  manner  in  which  the  Old  is  quoted  : 
"  Now  all  this  is  come  to  pass,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the  prophet.  .  .  . 
Thus  it  is  written  through  the  prophet.  .  .  .  That  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through 
the  prophet.  .  .  .  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was 
spoken  through  Jeremiah  the  prophet.  .  .  .  That  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  the  proph- 


340  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ets,  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene  "  (Matt,  i,  22;  ii,  5, 
15,  17,  23). 

In  four  of  these  passages  the  preposition  is  dia, 
"through,  by  means  of,"  and  in  the  other  it  is  upo, 
"  under,  by  the  agency  of,  at  the  hands  of."  In  ever}' 
instance  the  Lord  is  represented  as  the  speaker,  and  the 
prophets  are  the  mouthpieces  communicating  his  words. 
The  quotations  also  prove  that  what  was  historically 
true  of  Israel  called  out  of  Egypt,  and  Rachel  weeping 
for  her  children,  is  prophetically  true  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hence  that  all  Scripture  is  concerning  him, 
and  leads  to  him  if  wisely  read.  If  the  truth  of  ver- 
bal inspiration  had  been  seen  the  commentators  must 
have  recognized  the  difference  between  prophet  and 
prophets,  and  they  could  not  have  floundered  around  in 
the  dark  trying  to  find  where  it  is  written  in  the  Old 
Testament,  '*  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene."  It  is  writ- 
ten in  no  one  place,  but  the  drift  of  the  prophets  is,  He 
shall  be  called  a  despised  and  separated  One. 

The  preposition  dia  is  nearly  always  used  in  Matthew 
when  a  quotation  is  given  from  an  Old  Testament 
prophet  byname.  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was 
spoken  through  Isaiah  the  prophet  "  (Matt,  iv,  14).  "  That 
it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  Isaiah 
the  prophet  "  (Matt,  viii,  17),  ascribing  to  Isaiah  words 
which  the  higher  critics  tell  us  were  written  by  the  Great 
Unknown.  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spo- 
ken through  Isaiah  the  prophet  "  (Matt,  xii,  17  ;  Isa.  xlii, 
i).  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through 
the  prophet  "  (Matt,  xiii,  35).  "  All  this  was  done,  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  the 
prophet  "  (Matt,  xxi,  4).  "  When  ye,  therefore,  shall  see 
the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  through  Daniel 
the  prophet"  (Alatt.  xxiv,  15).  "  Then  was  fulfilled  that 
which  was  spoken  through  Jeremiah  the  prophet  "  (Matt. 


THE   TESTIMONY    OV   THE    BIBLE.  34I 

xxvii,  9).  It  is  evident  that  there  is  One  back  of  the 
prophet,  whose  mouth  or  pen  is  used  to  make  known  the 
divine  will  or  prediction. 

So  we  read  in  the  inspired  song  of  Zacharias,  inspired 
because  he  "  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  prophe- 
sied, saying,  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ;  for  he 
hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people,  and  hath  raised 
up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant 
David  ;  as  he  [God]  spake  by  [through]  the  mouth  of  his 
holy  prophets,  which  have  been  since  the  world  began  " 
(Luke  i,  67-70).  Peter  stood  up  just  before  the  day  of 
Pentecost  and  said,  "Men,  brethren,  this  Scripture  must 
needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
[through]  the  mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning 
Judas"  (Acts  i,  16).  The  assembled  apostles  prayed 
and  said,  "O  Lord,  thou  that  didst  make  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  and  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is:  who 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  mouth  of  our  father  David 
thy  servant,  didst  say  "  (Acts  iv,  24,  25,  Revised  Version). 
The  apostle  Paul  separated  from  the  unbelieving  Jews 
after  he  "  had  spoken  one  word.  Well  spake  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  [through]  Isaiah  the  prophet  unto  your  fathers  " 
(Acts  xxviii,  25). 

Opening  the  epistles,  we  read  at  the  very  beginning, 
"  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apostle, 
separated  unto  the  Gospel  of  God,  which  he  [God]  had 
promised  afore  by  [through]  his  prophets  in  the  holy 
Scriptures"  (Rom.  i,  r,  2).  If  the  Scriptures  are  full  of 
errors  and  mistakes  it  is  certain  that  they  cannot  be 
holy.  "  The  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh  "  (Rom.  ix, 
17),  and  eighteen  times  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  do 
we  find  the  words,  "  It  is  written,"  as  the  end  of  contro- 
versy. "  The  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  jus- 
tify the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  Gos- 
pel  unto  Abraham.  .   .  .  The   Scripture  hath  concluded 


342  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

all  under  sin  "  (Gal.  iii,  8,  22).  How  can  Scripture  say, 
and  foresee,  and  preach,  and  shut  up  all  together  as  in  a 
prison?  Only  because  it  is  instinct  with  the  presence  of 
God's  Spirit,  imparting  to  it  his  own  divine  attributes. 

Hence  every  word  of  Scripture  is  important,  and  every 
mode,  and  tense,  and  case,  and  gender,  and  number,  and 
inflection  should  be  reverently  studied,  because  it  is  all 
from  God.  Paul  writes,  "  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed 
were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds, 
as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one.  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is 
Christ  "  (Gal.  iii,  16).  The  other  day  a  paper  was  received 
from  a  young  jackanapes  of  a  higher  critic  stating  that 
the  apostle  was  a  poor  grammarian,  because  he  did  not 
know  that  the  word  seed  admits  no  plural  form.  The 
mother  of  the  conceited  youth,  if  she  is  living,  ought  to 
turn  him  over  her  knee  and  teach  him  more  sense  and 
less  impudence.  Yes,  there  is  a  difference  between  seed 
and  seeds,  and  upon  this  difference,  slight  as  it  is,  the 
apostle  who  wrote  in  the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth  established  a  great  and  vital  truth. 

"  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  in  time  past  unto  t!ie  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath 
in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  in  his  Son  "  (Heb.  i, 
I,  2).  Whether  it  was  by  the  prophets  or  his  Son,  it  was 
God  who  spoke,  and  still  speaks  in  "  the  word  of  God, 
which  liveth  and  abideth  forever"  (i  Peter  i,  23).  "  Where- 
fore as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith  "  (Heb.  iii,  7),  and  although 
there  is  not  a  word  about  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  psalm 
which  is  quoted  it  was  the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake. 
"  This  word,  Yet  once  more,  signifieth  the  removing  of 
those  things  that  are  shaken  *'  (Heb.  xii,  27) ;  and  again 
does  the  apostle  rest  an  important  doctrine  upon  a  single 
word  of  the  Bible.  If  such  a  use  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  the  New  does  not  prove  that  the  very  words  of  Scrip- 
ture are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  there  is  no  signifi- 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE.  343 

cance  in  language,  and  the  testimony  of  the  sacred  writers 
ceases  to  be  of  value  in  any  respect. 

HOW  OUR  LORD  USED  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

At  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  "  was  Jesus  led  up  of 
the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the 
devil."  Three  times  was  the  assault  made,  covering  the 
whole  ground  of  human  temptation,  and  three  times  it 
was  repelled,  not  by  the  display  of  divine  power,  but  by 
quotations  from  Scripture.  "  It  is  written,"  "  It  is  writ- 
ten," "  It  is  written,"  said  our  Lord  to  Satan,  and  in 
each  citation  he  brings  his  weapon  of  defense  from  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  as  if  foreseeing  the  contempt  that 
is  cast  upon  this  portion  of  the  inspired  writings  by  the 
higher  criticism  of  our  days.  Although  hungry,  after  a 
fast  of  forty  days,  he  gives  an  illustration  of  the  great 
truth  which  he  hurled  at  the  devil,  "  Man  shall  not  live 
by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out 
of  the  mouth  of  God  "  (Matt,  iv,  i-io).  As  the  late  Dr. 
Howard  Crosby  well  said,  "Imagine,  if  you  can,  the 
Messiah,  in  selecting  the  fittest  words  to  meet  Satan's 
assaults,  taking  up  a  fragment  of  a  forged  book,  a  book 
which  was  a  stupendous  lie,  framed  by  priestcraft." 

"  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or 
the  prophets:  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill. 
For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass, 
one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law, 
till  all  be  fulfilled"  (Matt,  v,  17,  18).  The  jot  or  jW  is 
the  smallest  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet;  the  tittle  is 
a  single  stroke  or  turn  or  twist  of  a  Hebrew  letter  ;  and 
heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  before  one  of  these  can 
be  set  aside.  In  another  place  our  Lord  says,  "  It  is 
easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the 
law  to  fail"  (Luke  xvi,  17);  and  thus  he  links  the  small- 
est  particle  of  a  Hebrew  letter,  however  trivial  it  may 


344  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

seem  to  be,  with  his  own  immutable  testimony,  of  which 
he  declares,  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my 
words  shall  not  pass  away"  (Matt,  xxiv,  35).  How  pro, 
found  the  reverence  of  our  Saviour  for  the  least  portion 
of  the  sacred  oracles,  and  how  unlike  the  profane  treat- 
ment with  which  they  are  handled  now  by  men  set  for 
their  defense  in  theological  seminaries  ! 

In  accordance  with  these  teachings  he  asserts  that 
"the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,"  or  loosened,  infringed, 
made  void,  nullified  (John  x,  35).  Every  chapter,  verse, 
line,  word,  and  syllable  he  regarded  as  the  word  of  God, 
and  therefore  in  whole  and  in  the  minutest  part  as  irref- 
ragable. In  the  light  of  this  plain  statement  it  is  as- 
tonishing that  so  many  preachers  and  professors  break 
the  Scripture  to  pieces  as  if  it  were  a  vessel  of  clay,  and 
talk  about  the  inspiration  of  the  concept,  apparently 
forgetful  of  the  fact  that  it  is  the  writing  which  cannot 
be  broken.  Hengstenberg  has  truly  said,  ''  It  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  Scripture  is  broken  by  those  who 
assert  that  the  Psalms  breathe  a  spirit  of  revenge,  that 
Solomon's  Song  is  a  common  oriental  love  song,  that 
there  are  in  the  prophets  predictions  never  to  be  fulfilled, 
or  by  those  who  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch."  This  able  scholar  might  have  added  that 
Scripture  is  broken  by  all  who  deny  its  plenary  and 
verbal  inspiration. 

Our  Lord  was  in  Gethsemane  praying,  when  a  mob  led 
by  Judas  appeared  to  seize  him,  and  Peter,  awaking  out 
of  sleep,  "  drew  his  sword,  and  struck  a  servant  of  the 
high  priest,  and  smote  off  his  ear."  Jesus  rebuked  him, 
saying,  "  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to 
my  Father,  and  he  shall  presently  give  me  more  than 
twelve  legions  of  angels?  But  how  then  shall  the 
Scriptures  be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must  be  ?  "  (Matt,  xxvi, 
53,  54.)     One  angel  swept  down  upon  the  camp  of  the 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE,  345 

Assyrians,  sla)^ing  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand 
soldiers  in  a  single  night  (Isa.  xxxvii,  36) ;  and  here 
many  thousand  angels  stood  ready  to  defend  and  deliver 
the  Son  of  God.  He  had  but  to  raise  one  cry  to  the 
Father,  and  legions  would  have  rushed  gladly  to  his 
rescue  ;  but  he  bowed  at  once  to  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, although  he  knew  that  it  would  cost  him  his  life. 

On  his  way  to  the  cross  he  said  to  the  Father,  "  Those 
that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is 
lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition  ;  that  the  Scripture  might 
be  fulfilled"  (John  xvii,  12).  While  hanging  on  the 
fatal  tree  as  our  sin-bearer  the  soldiers  gambled  for  his 
seamless  coat,  "  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled, 
which  saith.  They  parted  my  raiment  among  them,  and 
for  my  vesture  they  did  cast  lots.  These  things  there- 
fore the  soldiers  did."  A  little  later  "Jesus,  knowing 
that  all  things  were  now  accomplished,  that  the  Scripture 
might  be  fulfilled,  saith,  I  thirst."  It  seems  that  he  was 
scanning  the  wide  field  of  ancient  prophecy  to  see  if  any 
minute  prediction  remained  to  be  accomplished,  and, 
although  he  was  suffering  intolerable  agony,  he  refused 
to  bow  his  head  in  death  until  all  was  fulfilled.  The 
soldiers  brake  not  his  legs,  "  that  the  Scripture  should 
be  fulfilled,  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  broken  "  (John 
xix,  24,  28,  36).  When  we  find  this  apparently  trivial 
prediction  hid  away,  as  it  were,  in  a  chapter  about  the 
paschal  lamb,  written  fifteen  hundred  years  before  the 
crucifixion,  we  must  be  impressed  with  the  importance 
and  verbal  accuracy  of  the  least  line  of  Scripture  (Exod. 
xii,  46). 

Nothing  is  more  certain  than  the  respect  which  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  manifested  for  the  Old  Testament  in 
every  particular,  and  it  is  equally  obvious  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  the  silly  conceits  of  men  who  have  invented 
"  the  inspiration  of  suggestion,"  of  "  superintendence," 


346  ANTI-IIIGIIER    CRITICISM. 

of  "elevation,"  "dynamic  inspiration,"  and  the  "inspira- 
tion of  the  concept."  With  him  there  was  but  one  kind 
of  inspiration,  extending  equally  to  every  part  of  the  Old 
Testament,  for  it  was  all  from  God.  Hence  his  rebuke 
of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  "God  commanded,  saying. 
Honor  thy  father  and  mother.  .  .  .  Thus  have  ye  made 
the  commandment  of  God  of  none  effect  by  your  tradi- 
tion," a  rebuke  he  might  well  repeat  to  those  who  deny 
the  inerrant  inspiration  of  his  word  (Matt,  xv,  4,  6). 

NEW    TESTAMENT   WORDS   ARE   INSPIRED. 

On  one  occasion  our  Lord  told  his  apostles  that  they 
should  be  brought  before  councils  and  governors  and 
kings  for  his  sake.  "They  were  unlearned  and  igno- 
rant men,"  and  how  were  they  to  defend  themselves? 
"Take  no  thought  how  or  what  ye  shall  speak:  for  it 
shall  be  given  you  in  that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak. 
For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father 
which  speaketh  in  you  "  (Matt,  x,  19,  20).  On  another 
occasion  he  said  to  them,  "  Take  no  thought  before- 
hand what  )'c  shall  speak,  neither  do  ye  premeditate:  but 
whatsoever  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour,  that  speak 
ye:  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost" 
(Mark  xiii,  iij.  At  another  time  he  commanded  them, 
"  Take  ye  no  thought  how  or  what  thing  ye  shall  an- 
swer, or  what  ye  shall  say  :  for  the  Holy  Ghost  shall 
teach  you  in  the  same  hour  what  )'e  ought  to  say  " 
(Luke  xii,  II,  12), 

Here  then  at  three  different  periods  of  our  Lord's  min- 
istry he  positively  forbids  the  apostles  to  arrange  their 
plan  of  defense,  to  think  of  what  they  should  say,  to 
premeditate  for  one  moment  on  the  best  way  of  present- 
ing their  cause,  or  on  the  strongest  arguments  to  be  ad- 
vanced; for  they  were  to  give  themselves  no  more  con- 
cern about  their  speeches  than  children  three  years  old. 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE.  347 

Why?  "  It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your 
Father  speaketh  in  you."  Why  ?  "  It  is  not  ye  that 
speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost."  Why?  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  teach  you  in  the  same  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say." 
If  this  is  not  the  promise  of  an  inspiration  that  should 
extend  to  the  very  words,  and  dictate  the  very  words,  it 
is  impossible  to  express  any  concept  whatever  in  human 
language. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  at  the  first  oppor- 
tunity for  testimony  given  to  the  apostles  after  the  death 
of  the  Saviour,  "  They  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the 
Spirit  gave  then  utterance"  (Acts  ii,  4).  There  were 
people  in  Jerusalem  that  day  from  sixteen  different 
countries  and  provinces,  speaking  various  dialects,  and 
they  exclaimed  with  amazement,  "  How  hear  we  every 
man  in  our  own  tongue,  wherein  we  were  born?"  If 
this  is  not  verbal  inspiration  no  such  thing  is  possible  ; 
for  men  who  knew  nothing  of  foreign  languages  instan- 
taneously preached  the  Gospel  in  these  languages,  the 
very  words  being  given  to  them  without  the  slightest 
previous  education.  There  is  no  way  to  account  for  it 
except  by  believing  that  they  "  began  to  speak  with 
other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them   utterance." 

But  did  the  inspiration,  extending  to  the  words,  con- 
tinue with  them  ?  Let  us  see.  The  apostle  Paul,  who 
was  an  enemy  of  Christ  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  says  of 
himself,  "  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  teacheth  "  (i  Cor.  ii,  13).  The  very  words,  there- 
fore, were  communicated  to  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence  he  places  his  words  on  the  same  high  plane  of  au- 
thority with  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  :  "  Unto  the 
married  I  command,  yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord.  .  .  .  But  to 
the  rest   speak  I,  not   the    Lord  ;  "  and  they  were  under 


348  ANTT-HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

equal  obligation  to  obey  both.  A  man  came  running  up 
the  other  day,  thinking  that  he  had  a  strong  argument 
against  the  apostle's  claim  of  inspiration,  and  saying, 
"  Paul  wrote, '  I  speak  this  by  permission,  and  not  of  com- 
mandment.'" He  was  flattened  out  with  a  single  question  : 
"  From  whom  did  he  obtain  permission  ?  "  So  it  is  with 
the  oft-quoted  text,  "  I  think  also  that  I  have  the  Spirit 
of  God."  Read  it  as  the  Revised  Version  properly  gives 
the  translation,  and  notice  the  immense  difference  in  the 
meaning:  "  I  think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God." 
Do  the  Judaizing  teachers  who  deny  my  apostolic  au- 
thority claim  that  they  speak  by  the  Spirit  ?  "I 
think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  "  and  thus  he 
reproves  their  insolence  with  a  biting  sarcasm. 

But  what  he  afterward  says  sets  the  question  com- 
pletely at  rest.  "  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a 
prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things 
that  I  write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord  "  (i  Cor.  xiv,  37).  Again  he  writes  :  "  For  this 
cause  also  thank  we  God  without  ceasing,  because,  when 
ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye 
received  it  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth, 
the  word  of  God,  which  effectually  worketh  also  in  you 
that  believe"  (i  Thess.  ii,  13).  The  conclusion  he  draws 
from  this  is  logical  and  inevitable  :  "  He  therefore  that  de- 
spiseth,  despiseth  not  man,  but  God,  who  hath  also  given 
unto  us  his  Holy  Spirit  "  (i  Thess.  iv,  8). 

So  it  is  with  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
James  writes,  "  Do  ye  think  that  the  Scripture  saith  in 
vain.  The  spirit  that  he  placed  in  us  jealously  desireth 
us  ?  "  (James  iv,  5.)  Peter  writes  a  second  epistle,  that  we 
"may  be  mindful  of  the  words  which  were  spoken  be- 
fore by  the  holy  prophets,  and  of  the  commandment  of 
us  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  "  (2  Peter  iii,  2), 
putting  the  commandment  of  the  apostles  side  by  side 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE.  349 

with  the  authority  of  the  words  spoken  by  holy  men  of 
God,  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
John  says,  "  We  are  of  God :  he  that  knoweth  God 
heareth  us ;  he  that  is  not  of  God  heareth  not  us. 
Hereby  know  we  the  spirit  of  truth,  and  the  spirit  of 
error"  (i  John  iv,  6).  Jude  says,  "Remember  ye  the 
words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  apostles  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Jude  17).  Everywhere  the  exhorta- 
tion is,  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words"  (2  Tim. 
i,  13);  "Preach  the  word"  (2  Tim.  iv,  2);  "Holding 
fast  the  faithful  word  "  (Titus  i,  9).  "  For  the  word  of 
God  is  quick,  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two- 
edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of 
soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a 
discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart  "  (Heb. 
iv,  12).  Then  in  the  last  book  we  come  to  the  same  ad- 
monition in  substance  that  is  found  in  the  last  book  of 
the  Pentateuch :  "  I  testify  unto  every  man  that  heareth 
the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book,  If  any  man  shall 
add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the 
plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book :  and  if  any  man 
shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this 
prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book 
of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things 
which  are  written  in  this  book"  (Rev.  xxii,  18,  19). 

UNWILLING  WITNESSES. 
The  ass  on  which  Balaam  rode  with  a  desire  to  curse 
Israel  rebuked  the  madness  of  the  prophet,  for  "  the 
Lord  opened  the  mouth  of  the  ass,  and  she  said  unto 
Balaam,  What  have  I  done  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast 
smitten  me  these  three  times?  "  (Num.  xxii,  28.)  Even 
the  higher  critics  must  admit  that  this  is  a  clear  case  of 
verbal  inspiration,  and  it  will  not  do  for  them  to  say  that 
no  such  event  ever  occurred,  for  this  would  make  the 
23 


350  ANTI-HIGIIEK   CRITICISM. 

apostle  Peter  a  liar,  and  perhaps  they  are  not  yet  pre- 
pared to  go  to  such  lengths  (2  Peter  ii,  16). 

Balaam  himself  said  to  Balak,  "  Lo,  I  am  come  unto 
thee:  have  I  now  any  power  at  all  to  say  anything? 
the  word  that  God  putteth  in  my  mouth,  that  shall  I 
speak."  Accordingly,  "  The  Lord  met  Balaam,  and  put 
a  word  in  his  mouth,  and  said,  Go  again  unto  Balak, 
and  say  thus."  The  king  was  greatly  grieved  because 
the  curse  was  turned  into  a  blessing;  but  Balaam  an- 
swered and  said  unto  Balak,  "  Told  not  I  thee,  saying, 
All  that  the  Lord  speaketh,  that  I  must  do?"  Once 
more  the  king  complained,  and  Balaam  said,  "  If  Balak 
would  give  me  his  house  full  of  silver  and  gold,  I  cannot 
go  beyond  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  to  do  either 
good  or  bad  of  mine  own  mind  ;  but  what  the  Lord 
saith,  that  will  I  speak"  (Num.  xxiii,  16,  26;  xxiv,  13). 
Here,  then,  we  have  a  man  who  was  willing  to  do  Balak's 
bidding,  but  was  compelled  to  speak  the  very  words 
which  God  put  into  his  mouth,  giving  another  illustra- 
tion of  verbal  inspiration. 

So  it  was  with  Saul,  to  whom  Samuel  said,  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  will  come  upon  thee,  and  thou  shalt 
prophesy  with  them,  and  shalt  be  turned  into  another 
man  "  (i  Sam.  x,  6).  This  occurred  twice  in  the  history 
of  Saul ;  and  even  of  his  messengers,  whom  he  sent  to 
take  David,  we  are  told  that  "  when  they  saw  the  com- 
pany of  the  prophets  prophesying,  and  Samuel  standing 
as  appointed  (wer  them,  the  Spirit  of  God  was  upon  the 
messengers  of  Saul,  and  they  also  prophesied  "  (i  Sam. 
xix,  20).  There  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  such  a  scene 
unless  we  acknowledge  that  the  Spirit  of  God  forced 
these  men  to  give  expression  to  words  they  were  unwill- 
ing to  utter. 

"  Behold,  there  came  a  man  of  God  out  of  Judah  by 
the  word  of  the  Lord   unto   Bethel."      He  Avas  sent  to 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE.  35  I 

proclaim  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  upon  Jeroboam  for  the 
idolatrous  worship  w  hich  the  king  had  there  established, 
and  he  was  forbidden  to  eat  bread  or  to  drink  water  in 
the  place.  "  Now  there  dwelt  an  old  prophet  in  Bethel," 
and  hearing  from  his  sons  of  all  that  had  occurred  he 
hastened  after  the  other  prophet  and  informed  him  that 
an  angel  commanded  him  to  be  the  guest  of  the  prophet 
of  Bethel.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  sat  at  the 
table,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  the  prophet 
that  brought  him  back  :  and  he  cried  unto  the  man  of 
God  that  came  from  Judali,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
Forasmuch  as  thou  hast  disobeyed  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord,  and  hast  not  kept  the  commandment  which  the 
Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee,  but  camest  back,  and 
hast  eaten  bread  and  drunk  water  in  the  place,  of  the 
which  the  Lord  did  say  to  thee.  Eat  no  bread,  and 
drink  no  water  ;  thy  carcass  shall  not  come  unto  the 
sepulcher  of  thy  fathers.  And  it  came  to  pass,  after  he 
had  eaten  bread,  and  after  he  had  drunk,  that  he  saddled 
for  him  the  ass,  to  wit,  for  the  prophet  whom  he  had 
brought  back.  And  when  he  was  gone,  a  lion  met  him 
by  the  way,  and  slew  liim  :  and  his  carcass  was  cast  in 
the  way,  and  the  ass  stood  by  it,  the  lion  also  stood  by 
the  carcass  "  (i  Kings  xiii,  1-24). 

The  poor,  foolish,  slain  prophet  did  not  know  what  the 
apostle  knew  when  he  wrote,  "  Though  we,  or  an  angel 
from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that 
which  wc  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed  " 
(Gal.  i,  8).  The  prophet  who  brought  him  back,  under 
the  pretense  that  an  angel  had  reversed  the  divine  com- 
mand, "  lied  unto  him,"  and  was  obliged  most  unwill- 
ingly to  pronounce  the  doom  of  his  guest  ;  while  the 
lion  may  stand  for  the  devil,  as  he  is  so  represented  in 
Scripture  (i  Peter  v,  8),  and  the  ass  for  the  theological 
professor  who  denies  the  authority  and  inerrancy  of  the 


352  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

word  of  God,  and  looks  down  with  feeble  rumination  on 
the  dead  body  of  the  disobedient  servant  of  the  Lord. 

"One  of  them,  named  Caiaphas,  being  the  high  priest 
that  same  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing  at  all, 
nor  consider  that  it  is  expedient  for  us,  that  one  man 
should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation 
perish  not.  And  this  spake  he  not  of  himself"  (John 
xi,  49-51).  If  he  did  not  speak  this  of  himself  it  is 
obvious  that  the  Spirit  of  God  put  the  words  in  his 
mouth,  making  him  an  unwilling  witness  of  the  purpose 
and  results  of  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  How 
can  those  who  deny  verbal  inspiration  explain  the  facts 
here  mentioned  ?  Men  were  forced  by  supernatural 
power  to  bear  testimony  which  they  never  would  have 
given  if  left  to  themselves ;  and  it  is  easier  to  disbelieve 
the  entire  Bible  than  to  deny  that  both  holy  men  of 
God,  and  sometimes  even  wicked  men,  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  An  old  Christian,  who 
told  a  higher  critic  that  he  believed  everything  in  the 
Bible,  was  asked  by  the  leained  gentleman  whether  it 
was  not  at  least  a  strange  narrative  which  informs  us 
that  an  ass  opened  its  mouth  and  spake  like  a  man  ? 
"No,"  he  quietly  replied,  "it  does  not  seem  half  so 
strange  as  when  a  man  opens  his  mouth  and  speaks  like 
an  ass."  All  the  difficulties  that  gather  about  miracles 
and  about  verbal  inspiration  instantly  disappear  when 
faith  brings  God  upon  the  scene. 

THE  NAMES  OF  SCRIPTURE. 
These  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  not  only 
unlike  any  other  book,  and  above  all  other  books,  but 
that  the  charge  brought  against  it  by  the  higher  critics, 
that  it  is  full  of  errors  and  mistakes — a  charge  refuted  a 
thousand  times — is  without  a  shadow  of  foundation. 
Again  and  again  it  is  called  by  our  Lord  "  the  word  of 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   THE   BIBLE.  353 

God"  (Mark  vii,  13  ;  Luke  viii,  11  ;  xi,  28;  John  x,  35). 
He  says  of  it  in  his  great  intercessory  prayer,  "  Sanctify 
them  through  thy  truth  :  thy  word  is  truth  "  (John  xvii, 
17).  It  is  named  "the  oracles  of  God  "  (Rom.  iii,  2).  It 
is  "  the  word  of  this  salvation  "  (Acts  xiii,  26) ;  "  the  word 
of  his  grace"  (Acts  xiv,  3);  "the  word  of  the  Gospel" 
(Acts  XV,  7);  "the  word  of  the  Lord  "  (Acts  xv,  35); 
"  the  word  of  reconciliation  "  (2  Cor.  v,  19)  ;  "  the  word 
of  truth  "  (Eph.  i,  13) ;  "  the  word  of  life  "  (Phil,  ii,  16) ; 
"  the  word  of  Christ  "(Col.  iii,  16) ;  "  the  faithful  word  " 
(Titus  i,  9) ;  "  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth 
forever"  (i  Peter  i,  23).  At  least  forty  times  in  the 
New  Testament  do  we  read  of  "  the  word  of  God  ;  "  and 
the  Lord  Jesus  plainly  declares,  "  He  that  is  of  God 
heareth  God's  words  "(John  viii,  47).  It  is  impossible 
that  such  a  book  can  contain  errors  and  mistakes,  as  it 
came  from  the  hands  of  men  to  whom  and  through 
whom  God  was  pleased  to  reveal  his  truth  and  will. 

WHAT  THE  BIBLE  DOES  FOR  US. 
By  it  we  are  begotten.  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us 
with  the  word  of  truth  "  (James  i,  18).  By  it  we  are  born 
again.  "  Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but 
of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God  "  ( i  Peter  i,  23).  By 
it  we  grow.  "  As  newborn  babes,  desire  the  sincere 
milk  of  the  word,  that  ye  may  grow  thereby  "  (i  Peter 
ii,  2.)  By  it  we  are  built  up.  "  And  now,  brethren,  I 
commend  you  to  God,  and  to  the  word  of  his  grace, 
which  is  able  to  build  you  up  "  (Acts  xx,  32).  By  it  we 
are  sanctified.  "  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and  gave 
himself  for  it ;  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it 
with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word  "  (Eph.  v,  25,  26). 
By  it  we  are  defended.  "  Take  .  .  .  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God  "  (Eph.  vi,  17).  By  it 
the  secrets  of  the  heart   are  laid   bare.     "  The  word  of 


354  ANTI-HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

God  is  quick,  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two- 
edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of 
soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is 
a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart  " 
(Heb.  iv,  12).  A  book  of  which  these  things  are  truth- 
fully affirmed  cannot  contain  historic,  or  scientific,  or 
any  other  kind  of  error  or  mistake. 

But  why  seek  to  enumerate  its  manifold  excellences 
and  virtues  ?  Speaking  of  these  the  translators  of  our 
common  version  well  say,  "  And  what  marvel  ?  the  origi- 
nal thereof  being  from  heaven,  not  from  the  earth  ;  the 
author  being  God,  not  man  ;  the  inditer,  the  Holy  Spirit, 
not  the  wit  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  ;  the  penmen 
such  as  were  sanctified  from  the  womb,  and  endued  with 
a  principal  portion  of  God's  Spirit ;  the  matter,  verity, 
piety,  purity,  uprightness;  the  form,  God's  word,  God's 
testimony,  God's  oracles,  the  word  of  truth,  the  word  of 
salvation,  etc.  ;  the  effects,  light  of  understanding,  stable- 
ness  of  persuasion,  repentance  from  dead  works,  newness 
of  life,  holiness,  peace,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  lastly,  the 
end  and  reward  thereof,  fellowship  with  the  saints,  par- 
ticipation of  the  heavenly  nature,  fruition  of  an  inherit- 
ance immortal,  undefiled,  and  that  shall  never  fade  away. 
Happy  is  the  man  that  delighteth  in  the  Scripture,  and 
thrice  happy  that  meditateth  in  it  day  and  night." 


THE    END. 


DATE  DUE 

WaiMl<* 

^ 

tA^^ 

^^^f^^ww^iftji^ 

^^^,...--— ^ 

CAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

lii 


ii'i!  II! 


' 


BS480.M962C.2 

Anti-hlgher  criticism;  or,  Testimony  to 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00052  2815 


